( 1 ) THE above appeal is directed aginst the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Gadag. in RA. 48 of 1975 reversing the Judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff in OS 192 of 1972 and remanding the suit to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of excess amount of rent paid by him from 31-8-1962 to 10-5-1971 amounting to Rs. 1,521-50 from the defendant. The defendant entered appearance and contended that the suit was not maintainable and the Rent Controller, under the Karnataka rent Control Act, alone is competent to order refund of excess payment of rent made by the plaintiff. ( 4 ) THE learned Munsiff, Gadag, who tried the suit was of the view that the suit was not maintainable and he was further of the view that the plaintiff should have sought for restitution of the excess amount under s. 144 CPC and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the plaintiff filed RA 48 of 1975 before the Civil Judge. Gadag. The learned civil Judge, upon consideration of the material on record was of the view that neither S 18 (1) of the Kar House Rent Control Act 1961, nor the provisions of S 144 CPC were attracted in the case. In that view of the matter, the learned Civil Judge, reached the conclusion that the suit was maintainable and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the suit for disposal in accordance with law. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the defendant has filed the above miscellaneous second appeal. ( 6 ) IT is not possible to accept the contention on behalf of the appellant that the suit is not maintainable, in view of the provisions of S. 18 (1) of the KHRC Act 1961, and S. 144 of the CPC. But, the suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of S. 9 of the CPC. It says: " The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. But, the suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of S. 9 of the CPC. It says: " The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. " ( 7 ) THERE is no provision in the KHRC Act 1961, which enables a tenant to institute proceedings to recover excess amount of rent paid by him to the landlord. In view of this position of law in the Rent Control act, the Civil Court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the suit and disposing it of in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned Civil judge is right in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanding the same for disposal in accordance with law. The appellate Court's order is also consistent with the provisions of order 41 Rule 21 CPC. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, miscellaneous second appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .