Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 234 (KAR)

SHIVADEVI v. SHIVAPPA R. MULAMUTTAL

1978-09-21

N.R.KUDOOR

body1978
( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 9-3-1978 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Hubli. in H. R. C. No. 157 of 1976 holding on the preliminary issue that there was no necessity of issuing separate notice to the petitioner, that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent herein and the petitioner and that the court of the Principal Munsiff Hubli, has jurisdiction to try the case, on an application filed by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Act, for short ). Faced with an adverse order passed by the learned Principal Munsiff the petitioner came to this court through this revision petition under S. 115 C P. C read with section 50 (1) of the Act. ( 2 ) WHEN the matter has come up for admission the question that has mooted for consideration regarding the admissibility or otherwise of the revision is whether a revision under S: 115 C P C read with S. 50 ( 1) of the Act is maintainable in view of sub-sec. (2) of S. 50 of the Act under which a revision is provided against any order passed or proceeding taken by the court of the Munsiff under the provisions of the Act to the District Judge ( 3 ) SHRI Ajit Gunjal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the revision provided under sub-section (2) of S 50 of the Act is only against an order conclusively determining the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and since the order impugned is only an interlocutory order, it does not fall within the ambit of 'order' contemplated under sub-section 2) of S 50 of the Act and as such a revision under S 115 c. P. C would lie to this court ( 4 ) IT is difficult to accept the above contention firstly on the ground that the order impugned cannot be said to be a mere interlocutory order as it is an order that has conclusively determined the rights of the parties with regard to the relationship between them in controversy in the suit. Secondly, the revision provided under sub-section (2) of S 50 of the Act embraces all types of orders passed or proceeding taken by the court of the Munsiff and it doesnot restrict only to the orders determining the rights of the parties. ( 5 ) IT is difficult to maintain that an order determining the relationship between the parties in a petition for eviction as landlord and tenant under the provisions of the Act is merely an interlocutory order. It is an order affecting the substantial rights of the parties since the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is a jurisdictional question for adjudication of the matter arising under the provisions of the Act. Such an order conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to one of the matters in controversy viz. the jurisdictional question though it may be a preliminary issue. One of the questions arose for determination under the preliminary issue was the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Under the impugned order, the learned Munsiff has held that such a relationship exists between the parties. That being so, it cannot be said that the impugned order is a mere interlocutory order. ( 6 ) NOW coming to the second aspect, it seems to me that the revision provided under sub-section (2) of S. 50 of the Act embraces all orders including an interlocutory order passed by the court of the Munsiff. The language employed in sub-section (2) of S. 50 'any order parsed or proceeding taken' does not admit a restricted meaning as sought to be argued by Sri Ajit Gunjal that it would include only such orders affecting substantial rights of the parties and not orders of an interlocutory nature. The view I take on the interpretation of the language employed in sub-section (2) of S. 50 gains substantial support from the change brought about in the provisions of the Act by the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) act, 1975 (Act No. 31 of 1975) (which will be hereinafter referred to as the "amending Act" ). ( 7 ) PRIOR to the coming into force of the Amending Act. the "court "within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. ( 7 ) PRIOR to the coming into force of the Amending Act. the "court "within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. as it stood then, in respect of any local area was the "court of the Munsiff" having territorial jurisdiction in such area. There were two modes of remedies provided under the provisions of the Act as it then stood against an order passed by the court of the Munsiff: (1) an appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the premises are situate against an order passed by the court of the Munsiff under S. 21 of the Act and then a revision to the High Court against the decision of the District Judge in appeal; (2) a revision directly to the High Court against any order passed by the court of the Munsiff. A substantial change has been brought about by the amending act which altogether took away the right of appeal and in its place, a revision is provided. Besides, it has also changed the forum of the court of first instance in trying the cases under the provision of the Act by bringing about a change in the definition of the 'court'. Under the amended definition, 'court' means in respect of the area comprised within the City of Bangalore and in such other areas as t he State Government may, in consultation with the High Court, by notification specify, the court of Civil Judge having territorial jurisdiction in such area and in respect of other areas, the court of Munsiff having territorial jurisdiction in such area. After the coming into force of the Amending Act, a revision to the High Court is provided under sub-section (1) of S. 50 against any order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of the Civil Judge and a similar provision is made in sub-section (2) of S. 50 against any order passed or proceeding taken by the court of the Munsiff and it has further provided that the order of the District judge made in revision shall be final. ( 8 ) ON a close reading of the provisions contained in S. 50 as a whole, it is obvious that two separate revisional forums under the Act are provided against the orders passed or proceeding taken by the Civil Judge and the Munsiff. ( 8 ) ON a close reading of the provisions contained in S. 50 as a whole, it is obvious that two separate revisional forums under the Act are provided against the orders passed or proceeding taken by the Civil Judge and the Munsiff. So far as the order passed or proceeding taken by the Munsiff is concerned, a revision is provided to the District Judge and the order of the District Judge in revision is made final. No revision is provided against any order passed or proceeding taken by the court of the Munsiff directly to the High Court under the provisions of the act although a revision to the High Court was provided against such order or proceeding taken prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act. In view of the fact that two separate and distinct revisional forums are provided against the orders passed or proceeding taken by the court of the Civil Judge and the court of the Munsiff, it is apposite to hold that the revisional powers of the District Judge under sub-sec. (2) of S. 50 of the Act embraces all orders passed or proceeding taken by the court of the Munsiff. I may hasten to add that a revision under s. 115 CPC, would lie to the High Court against an order made by the District judge in revision. That it is so has been ruled by the Full Bench of this court in krishnaji Venkatesh Shrodkar v. Gurupad Skivarum Kavalekar, CRP. 248/77 dt. 15-9-78 FB. Since the court of the District Judge is the revisional forum against any order passed or proceeding taken by the court of the Munsiff as provided under sub-sec. (2) of s. 50 of the Act and no revision is provided under the Act directly to the High court against any order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of the Munsiff, i am of the view that a revision under S. 115 CPC. read with S. 50 (1) of the Act would not lie to this court against an order passed or proceeding taken by the court of the Munsiff. In that view of the matter, this revision is not maintainable and it is accordingly rejected. The papers may be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the proper court. --- *** --- .