CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's revision petition under Sec. 18 of the Karnataka Small cause Courts Act, 1964. The respondents who are placed ex-parte in this court filed a Small Cause Suit No. 4/ 1982 for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule premises. The petitioner resisted the suit inter aliacontending that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain tha suit as he was protected under the provisions made in Sec. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and only the Court as defined under the said Act had jurisdiction to pass an eviction order in as much as Vadagaon where the premises is situated was included within the corporation limits of the City of Belgaum to which the said Karnataka Rent Control act applies. That plea came to be rejected when the Court proceeded on the assumption that it had jurisdiction. it is that decision which has been questioned in this Court. ( 2 ) AN identical question arose for consideration in the case of M/s Doddannavar Brothers v Malathibai (I. L R. 1985 (2) Karnataka, 3025 ). Kulkarni, J. , came to the conclusion despite the decision of the Full Bench of this Court that there was no need for a separate notification to be issued under the Karnataka Rent control Act to confer jurisdiction on the court under that Act to bring areas subsequent added to form part of the City of Belgaum. I see no reason why that view should not be adhered to by me also. I say with respect that it is the correct view having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case or lakshmi Narayan Guin and others v niranjan Modak ( AIR 1985 SC 111 ). In the said case West Bengal Premises tenancy Act (12 of 1956) particularly sec. 13 (1), (6) of the Act fell for consideration. The Act was extended to certain areas after the passing of a decree for eviction but during the pendency of the matter in appeal. The supreme Court held that appeal being a continuation of the suit, the appeal should be held to be not maintainable or even the suit maintainable as the court ceased to have jurisdiction by the extension of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act to the area in which the property was situated. The supreme Court held that appeal being a continuation of the suit, the appeal should be held to be not maintainable or even the suit maintainable as the court ceased to have jurisdiction by the extension of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act to the area in which the property was situated. The ratio of that decision is that similarly the areas when included in the city limits, the laws in operation in that city get extended to the areas newly added, without any special notification under the Karnataka rent Control Act. ( 3 ) THEREFORE, if the fact that vadagaon is within the City of Belgaum is not in dispute the trial Court was clearly in error in assuming jurisdiction which it had been divested of. ( 4 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. The Small Cause Suit filed by the respondents is dismissed without affecting the rights of respondents to present a fresh petition under the Karnataka Rent Control Act for eviction of the petitioner who admittedly is a tenant. Revision is Allowed. --- *** --- .