N. VENKATACHALA, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent-plaintiff instituted before the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore city-'trial Court'-a suit for recovery of possession of his building situated in kengeri village on the outskirts of Bangalore city, from his tenant the petitioner- defendant. The petitioner, who filed a written statement in answer to the claim in the suit, raised an objection that the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), since applied to the building, the recovery of possession of which was sought, only a petition for eviction under that Act would lie and not an original suit as brought. Consequently, an issue "whether the Karnataka Rent Control Act is applicable to the suit property" came to be raised in the suit. The trial Court tried that issue as a preliminary issue and answered it in the negative. ( 2 ) SRI Chandrashekharaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court was in error in recording a finding in the negative on the preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the suit. According to him, amended S. 3 (d) (i) of the Act attracts the application of Part V of the Act to Kengeri village and hence no original suit for recovery of possession of the building within the area of Kengeri village, would lie. ( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with the contention, it would be advantageous to state what is contained in Part V of the Act and how the provisions therein are attracted areawise. ( 4 ) (I) Part V of the Act contains provisions which control eviction of tenants and obligations of landlords including the provision relating to eviction of tenants. (ii) S. 2 (3) of the Act reads : "part V of this Act shall be applicable to the areas specified in Sch. II". (iii) Item 57 of Sch. II to the Act reads : "city of Bangalore and an area within a radius of two miles from the Municipal limits of the City". From the above, it becomes obvious that the provision for eviction of a tenant from a building contained in Part V of the act, is attracted if such building lies within the City of Bangalore and an area within a radius of two miles from the municipal limits of the City. From the above, it becomes obvious that the provision for eviction of a tenant from a building contained in Part V of the act, is attracted if such building lies within the City of Bangalore and an area within a radius of two miles from the municipal limits of the City. ( 5 ) SRI Chandrashekharaiah's contention, as elaborated by him, runs thus : The court of small causes referred to in S. 3 (d) (i), has jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Part V of the Act for eviction of tenants. That Court's jurisdiction extends to the City of Bangalore as defined in the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act, 1979, which means "city of Bangalore"-the area for the time being included in the metropolitan area comprising the bangalore City as declared under S. 8 of the crl. PC, 1973. Since Kengeri village where the suit building is located, falls within the Metropolitan area comprising the bangalore City declared under S. 8 of the crl. PC, 1973, Part V of the Act becomes applicable to that building. This submission, in my view, is misconceived and cannot be upheid for the reasons which i shall presently state. ( 6 ) S. 3 (d) (i) of the Act as amended by s. 15 of the Bangalore City Civil Courts act, 1979, and S. 7 of the Bangalore City civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1980. reads :" (D) 'court' means,- (i) in respect of the area comprised within the limits of the City of Bangalore as defined in the Bangalore City civil Courts Act, 1979, the Court of small Causes". ( 7 ) S. 2 (2) of the Bangalore City Civil courts Act, 1979, as amended by the Bangalore City Civil Courts (Amendment) act, 1980, which defines 'city of Bangalore', reads :" 'city of Bangalore' means the area for the time being included in the Metropolitan area comprising the Bangalore city declared under S. 8 of the Crl. PC, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974)". ( 8 ) WHAT emerges from a combined reading of the above two provisions is that the Court of small causes having territorial jurisdiction over the City of Bangalore, namely, the area for the time being ineluded in the Metropolitan area comprising the Bangalore City declared under S. 8 of the Crl. PC, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974)". ( 8 ) WHAT emerges from a combined reading of the above two provisions is that the Court of small causes having territorial jurisdiction over the City of Bangalore, namely, the area for the time being ineluded in the Metropolitan area comprising the Bangalore City declared under S. 8 of the Crl. PC, 1973, should be regarded as the Court for the purpose of the Act respecting the buildings in the area of the city of Bangalore covered by the Act. Therefore, the territorial jurisdiction of the court of small causes for the purpose of the Act, namely, Part V of the Act, could only be the area of the City of Bangalore and an area within a radius of two miles from the Municipal limits of the City specified in Item 57 of Sch. II to the Act, As held by a Full Bench of this Court in dattatram N. Anvekar v. Shankar L. Parulekar (1), application of Part V of the Act to an area beyond that which is already covered under the Act, cannot arise by reason of the extension of an are a of a city under the relevant Municipal Act, but has to be done by issue of a separate notification as required under sub-sec. (5) of S. 2 of the Act. ( 9 ) IT is undisputed that Kengeri village, though comes within the City of bangalore as defined under the Bangalore city Civil Courts Act. falls beyond the area of the City of Bangalore and an area within a radius of two miles from the municipal limits of the City, envisaged in item 57 of Sch. II to the Act. Hence, part V of the Act cannot be attracted to a building in Kengeri village, which is the subject matter of the suit out of which the present revision petition has arisen. From this it follows that the trial Court was right in recording the finding on the preliminary issue to the effect that the Act has no application to the suit building. ( 10 ) IN the result, this revision petition falls and is accordingly dismissed, however, without costs. --- *** --- .