( 1 ) THE petitioner is defendant-1 and respondent-1 is the plaintiff in OS. No. 339 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Dharwar. That is a suit by respondent-1 for partition claiming 1/8th share in the suit sche dule premises. Before the institution of the said suit, the petitioner had instituted proceedings for eviction of respondent-1 in HRC. 60/72 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Dharwar, alleging that the first respondent is a tenant of the suit premises and that she had committed default in the payment of rent. ( 2 ) THE first respondent denied the tenancy pleaded by the petitioner. The learned Munsiff, being of the opinion, that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, made an order directing the first respondent to deposit the arrears of rent. Thereafter, the first respondent filed the aforesaid suit for partition. ( 3 ) IN that suit, she applied for stay of further proceedings in HRC 60/72. The learned Munsiff made an interim order of stay and that order was made absolute after hearing the parties. Aggrieved by the said order of stay, the petitioner has preferred the above revision petition. ( 4 ) SHRI A. K. Lakshmeswar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Civil Court, in a partition suit, has no jurisdiction to stay further proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act and the order under revision is clearly one without jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THIS submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion is right The Court constituted under the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961, is a Court of exclusive jurisdiction. It is not a Court subordinate to the Civil Court dealing with the partition suit. It requires no authority to say that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to stay proceedings in the Rent Control Case. It is not for this Court to advise what is the remedy of the first respondent in such circumstances. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, 1 allow his revision petition, reverse the order of the Court below and dismiss IA. No. 1 and allow LA. No. II in the court below. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .