G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the diefendant is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 12. 9. 1974 passed by the First addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City in R. A. No. 100 of 1972 on his file, dismissing the appeal and cofirming the Judgment and decree dt. 8. 11. 71 passed by the III Addl. I Munsiff, bangalore in O. S. No. 2148 of 1967 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE defendant in the suit took on lease from the plaintiff, the corporation land fully described in the suit schedule agreeing to pay rent of rs. 150 per month. The tenancy of the defendant was terminated by issuing a notice to quit dt. 2. 8. 1967; that was received by the tenant on 12. 8. 67. The defendant was due to the plaintiff by way of rent in a sum of Rs. 450 being the arrears of rent upto 10. 9. 1967. Hence, the, plaintiff sued the defendant for arrears of rent, for possession of the suit property and for. other reliefs in the Munsiffs court, at O. S. No. 2148 of 1967. The suit was resisted by the defendant raising different grounds in defence. He contended that the lease was not from month to month. But that it was a yearly lease and hence, the notice of termination issued was not valid in law. He further submitted that the rent was paid after the notice was received. Therefore, the notice was waived. The other contention was that the suit ought to have been instituted under the provisions of the Mysore rent Control Act as the said Act was applicable to the area. The trial Court raised the following issues as arising for its decision from the pleadings. 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants tenancy in the suit property ran from month to month? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant's tenancy has been terminated by a valid notice to quit? 3) Whether the defendant proves that the notice issued by the plaintiff is waived by subsequent acceptance of rent? 4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the, diefendant is in arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 450/- 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property and the arrears of rent claimed? 6) What decree? 3) Whether the defendant proves that the notice issued by the plaintiff is waived by subsequent acceptance of rent? 4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the, diefendant is in arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 450/- 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property and the arrears of rent claimed? 6) What decree? ( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff, appreciating the evidence adduced before him, answered issues 1 and 2 in the affirmative; so also issues 4 and 5. He answered issue No. 3 in the negative and in that view, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendant went up in appeal before the I Addl. Civil Judge. Bangalore City in R. A. No 100/72 on his file. ( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge, after hearing the arguments, framed the following points as arising for his consideration in the appeal. (1) Whether the notice issued is not valid? (2) Whether the defendant appellant is in arrears of rent of Rs. 450/-? (3) a) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief in the suit, in view of the provisions of the mysore Rent Control Act. (3) b) and the provisions of Mysore public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act of 1961? ( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge, leassessing the evidence an record, in the light of the arguments addressed before him, answered point No. 1 holding that the notice issued terminating the tenancy of the appellant was valid. Under Point No. 2 he held, that the defendant was in arrears of rent of Rs. 450 Under Point No. 3 (a) he held that the provisions of the Mysore Rent control Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. Under Point No. 3 (b) he answered that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court regarding pending suits and appeals was not taken away by the Public Premises Act of 1961 and in that view he dismissed the appeal as stated above, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Under Point No. 3 (b) he answered that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court regarding pending suits and appeals was not taken away by the Public Premises Act of 1961 and in that view he dismissed the appeal as stated above, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree the defendant has come up with the above second appeal before this Court ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appcllant-defendant strenuously urged before me that the courts below were not justified in holding that the suit was maintainable in a Civil Court, since the area was covered under the provisions of the Karnataka rent Control Act. He further submitted that in view of the Act No. 32 of 1969. the action should have been taken only under the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act and not in a Civil Court. ( 7 ) AS against that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation argued supporting the judgment and decree of the trial Court confirmed by the first appellate Court. ( 8 ) THE points, therefore, that arise for my consideration in this appeal are:-1) Whether the plaintiff's suit was maintainable in the civil Court. In view of the fact that the area was covered by the provisions of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 19617 2) Whether in view of the provisions made in Act No. 32 of 1969, the suit was maintainable in a Civil Court? ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in view of S. 434 (E) of the Bangalore municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961. did not apply to the facts of the case. When the Corporation instituted the suit against a tenant whose tenancy was determined, the suit for eviction could be instituted before the civil Court. To appreciate the force of the argument it is necessary to read S. 434 (E) of the Bangalore municipal Corporation Act of 1949. It states:"mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, not to apply to the lands of the corporation Notwithstanding anything contained in Mysore Rent Control act, 1961, the provisions of the said Act shall not apply to any land belonging to or vesting in the Corporation. It states:"mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, not to apply to the lands of the corporation Notwithstanding anything contained in Mysore Rent Control act, 1961, the provisions of the said Act shall not apply to any land belonging to or vesting in the Corporation. " ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, however, pointed out that this amendment was inserted in the Act by Act No. 2 of 1968 and that the suit was instituted in the year 1967 and therefore, the amendment could not be invoked for saving the suit. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, invited my attention to the amending Act itself, namely, mysore Act No. 2 of 1968 (first published in the Mysore Gazette on the 11th of Janury. 1968 ). S. 1 (2) of the Act reads:"it shall be deemed to have come into force on the twelfth day of September 1967". That being so. it is obvious that the suit instituted on 24-10-1967 is obviously after the provisions of the amending Act came into force, and hence there is no substance in the contention that the suit could not be instituted in the Civil Court in view at the provisions of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961. ( 11 ) ADVERTING to the next point the learned Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthrised Occupants) Act, 1974, which includes premises belonging to a Corporation also. Sub-sec, (e) of S. 2 reads:"public Premises" means any premises belonging to or allotted, to State government or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the state Government and includes any premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of. . . . (i) a local authority; (ii ). . . . . . (iii) any Corparation (not being a Company as defined in Sec. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956) established by or under a State Act and owned or controlled by the state Government; and (iv ). . . Thus, the learned Counsel submitted that under 1974 Act even premises owned and leased by the Corporation is considered as public premises under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 74 which provides for special procedure to evict the unauthorised occupants, and ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil court (vide S. 16 ). . . Thus, the learned Counsel submitted that under 1974 Act even premises owned and leased by the Corporation is considered as public premises under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 74 which provides for special procedure to evict the unauthorised occupants, and ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil court (vide S. 16 ). Hence, he submitted that the proceeding for eviction should have been under the Karnataka Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974 and not before the ordinary court of law. But, the learned: Counsel appearing for the respondent plaintiff invited my attention to the earlier Act of Mysore Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occcpants) Act, 1962, wherein properties owned by a Corporation were not included as "public Promises '. Therefore, at the time when the suit was instituted, the Civil Coutt had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it was only before the Civil Court that the suit could be brought. It move further be noted that the Karnataka Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974 is no doubt given retrospective operation, under S. 1 (3) which states; it shall be deemed to have come into force on the 18th January 1962 except sections 12 and 19 which shall come into force at once. "hence, he submitted that on the date on which the suit was filed it should be deemed that this Act was in force and the suit could not be instituted. But this argument was successfully met by the other side by pointing out that this Act has made it specifically clear under S. 19 providing for repeal and savings, that the provisions of S. 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act shall be applicable in respect of the repeal of the said enactment and S. 8 and 24 of the said Act shall he applicable as if the paid enactment had been repealed and re-enacted by this Act. One of the acts repealed includes the Mysore Act no. 3 of 1962. Therefore, it becomes clear that any action pending would be saved by S. 6 (e) and the inclusion of premises belonging to the Corporation in the Act, 1974, would not affect adversly the pending proceeding with regard; to such premises. In that view, the suit before the Civil Court is maintainable and was rightly decreed. 3 of 1962. Therefore, it becomes clear that any action pending would be saved by S. 6 (e) and the inclusion of premises belonging to the Corporation in the Act, 1974, would not affect adversly the pending proceeding with regard; to such premises. In that view, the suit before the Civil Court is maintainable and was rightly decreed. ( 12 ) IN the result, therefore, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed and I dismiss the same. In view of the questions of law involved in the appeal, I make no orders as to costs in this appeal. ---