A. K. LAXMESHWAR, J. ( 1 ) THE above Regular Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the 1st Additional civil Judge, Kolar, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31-1-1977 passed by the learned munsiff, Kolar, in O. S. No. 139/74. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule premises and for possession of the same, for damages amounting to Rs. 500/- in respect of the damages caused to the suit schedule house by the defendant, for notice charges of Rs. 34/- with costs and for direction to the defendant to pay rent for three years next before suit ie. , in a sum of Rs. 468/- for the eastern portion of the suit premises and Rs. 80/- being the damages for use and occupation of the western portion of the suit schedule premises from about march, 1974 and for future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure and for other consequential reliefs. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case is that the schedule premises is joint family property of the plaintiff of which he is the manager. The defendant took the eastern portion on lease from the plaintiff's father p. Venkatachalaiah on 4-7-1966 on a monthly rent of Rs. 13/ -. The defendant paid Rs. 90/- towards rent on 22-6-1969 and the same has been endorsed on the rent note. He did not pay any other rent. The plaintiff's father died on 19-10-1973. Taking advantage of it, and of the absence of the plaintiff, he being an employee of the Vysya Bank at Hindupur, damaged the premises let out to him, and dug up pits in front of his house. Then the plaintiff quarrelled with him and got issued a notice to the defendant terminating his tenancy with effect from 3-5-1974 and he demanded the payment of the arrears of rent and also damages of Rs. 200/ -. After the service of notice to the defendant, the defendant has forcibly occupied the western portion of the house which the plaintiff's father has reserved for himself which had included the vacant site. The defendant began to use that portion to tether his cattle, to store grass etc. , thus he damaged the building also. 200/ -. After the service of notice to the defendant, the defendant has forcibly occupied the western portion of the house which the plaintiff's father has reserved for himself which had included the vacant site. The defendant began to use that portion to tether his cattle, to store grass etc. , thus he damaged the building also. Thereafter the plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendant on 8-3- 1974 but it was returned and un-served. ( 3 ) THE defendant by his reply notice dated 5-4-1973 admitted the lease in his favour, but set up a false claim that the plaintiff's father had executed an agreement to sell in his favour and that he had spent Rs. 1200/- towards the repairs of this house. Thus, according to the plaintiff, defendant is in possession of the eastern portion as a lessee and the western portion as a tresspasser. The defendant filed his written statement contending interalia that he took the entire plaint schedule house on lease on a rent of Rs. 13/- from the plaintiff's father on 6-4-1961. He had paid rents upto 14-3-1973 on which date the plaintiff's father executed an agreement to sell for a sum of Rs. 2000/- taking an advance of Rs. 1,500/- agreeing to receive the balance amount of Rs. 500/- at the time of Registration and after the dispute regarding the vacant site on the west between the plaintiff's father and Sharada vidyarthy Sanga, Gudibanda, was settled in court. After the death of the plaintiff's father the defendant approached the plaintiff, his brother and their mother to execute a sale deed as agreed upon by receiving the balance amount of Rs. 500/- and even though they promised to execute the sale deed they put it off. Hence i have filed this suit. Thus, according to the defendant, there is no subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant and he has been in occupation of the entire house by virtue of an agreement to sell executed in his favour by the plaintiff's father. He has also stated that he has spent Rs. 1200/- for repairs of the house after that agreement. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff has also filed his reply statement denying the contention of the defendant. He has also stated that he has spent Rs. 1200/- for repairs of the house after that agreement. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff has also filed his reply statement denying the contention of the defendant. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issues : (1) Whether the defendant is in possession of the eastern portion of the plaint schedule premises as a tenant and the western portion as a tresspasser, as such liable to be evicted from the entire house for which he is allegedly a tenant and the entire house on the grounds of wrongful possession ? (2) Whether the plea of part performance of an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is true and tenable ? (3) Whether the defendant has effected improvements to the schedule premises ? (14) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction and for recovery of rents ? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 C. P. C. ? (6) To what reliefs the parties are entitled ? the Trial Court held that the defendant was in occupation of the eastern portion as a tenant and western portion as a tresspasser and that he had effected repairs to the plaint schedule house. Being aggrieved, R. A. No. 42 of 1977, was filed before the I additional Civil Judge, Kolar. The said appeal was filed by defendant. The learned Civil Judge heard the counsels and raised the following points for consideration: (i) Whether the suit is not maintainable because the legal representative of late Venkatachalaiah have not been made parties ? (ii) Whether the defendant-appellant was in possession of the entire plaint schedule premises as a tenant and whether subsequently with effect from 14-3-1973 is in possession of the entire house under an agreement to sell executed in his favour by late Venkatachalaiah ? (iv) Whether the trial court has been right in granting the reliefs to the plaintiff as mentioned in its judgment ? as regards the other contention, the learned Munsiff negatived all the contention of the defendant regarding agreement etc. However the learned Civil Judge answered point No. 1 in positive. (iv) Whether the trial court has been right in granting the reliefs to the plaintiff as mentioned in its judgment ? as regards the other contention, the learned Munsiff negatived all the contention of the defendant regarding agreement etc. However the learned Civil Judge answered point No. 1 in positive. As regards point No. 2, the learned Civil Judge has mentioned in his judgment that the evidence of defendant is in direct conflict with his contention in his written statement as to when the western portion was allegedly leased to him. It is also stated that first Venkatachalaiah would not have leased the western portion without enhancing the rent. Apart from his uncorroborated testimony in this behalf, there is no other witness to it. Thus on this evidence the Civil Judge has rightly negatived the contention of the defendant that he was in occupation of the western portion as the tenant under late Sri. Venkatachalaiah. This was also the finding of the learned Munsiff. The Civil Judge concurred. It is a finding on a question of fact. I agree with his finding. Nothing is shown by the other side that the finding of the appellate court is perverse or capritious. As regards the second point raised, the learned Civil Judge has negatived it. The contention of the defendant that the plaintiff's father entered into a contract with him and has executed an agreement to sell both the courts have concurrently held on the point. Therefore I decline to interfere with the said concurrent finding on a question of facts. After hearing both the counsel, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved, defendant filed the above appeal. Mr. Reddappa, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that since the Amendment of section 21 by (Amendment Act. 17) (Karnataka Rent Control Amendment act, 1983) the Court can make an order of recovery of possession. Therefore the learned Counsel contended that the court can make the order or pass a decree only when as per provision of Sec. 21 of the Act, but that provision takes the power of the trial court to pass an order. As per the amendment, Gudibanda area comes in the jurisdiction of learned Munsiff. Therefore the learned Counsel contended that the court can make the order or pass a decree only when as per provision of Sec. 21 of the Act, but that provision takes the power of the trial court to pass an order. As per the amendment, Gudibanda area comes in the jurisdiction of learned Munsiff. Wherefore, Civil Court was stipped out of the power to pass a decree for possession regarding the tenanted premises for which, he has relied upon the decision of Supreme court which I shall later discuss. As against this, Mr. Gopalakrishna shetty, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that so far the application of the amendment is concerned, it is prospective in law, and the law that was in force at the time of passing the decree is to be considered and applied. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel Mr. Reddappa invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in LAKSHMI narayan GUIN AND OTHERS v NIRANJAN MOKAK (AIR 1985 (1) sc - 111) Head Note of decision is :"w. B. Premises Tenancy Act (12 of 1956), S. 13 (l), (6) - applicability-Extension of act to particular area after passing of eviction decree but during pendency of appeal- sc. 13 can be invoked. Tenant entitled to claim protection, appeal being continuation of suit-Change in Law pending appeal to be taken into account". On page 114, His Lord Ship had specifically laid down that :"the hearing of an appeal was, under the Processual Law of this Country, in the nature of a re-hearing of the suit. In Amarjit Kaur (Supra) this court referred also to Lachmeshwar prasad Shukul -vs-Keshwarlal chaudhuri (1940 VCR-84) (AIR 1941 FC 5) in which the Fedral court had laid down that once a decree passed by a Court had been appealed against the matter become Subjudice again and thereafter the appellate Court acquired Seisin of the whole case, except that for certain purposes, for example, execution the decree was regarden as final and the court below retained jurisdiction". Relaying upon the decision the learned counsel Mr. Reddappa submitted' that once a decree has been passed by a trial court and if it is appealed, then it becomes a decree under appeal. Therefore the Appellate court has seized of the whole case when an appeal is pending before it. The Appellate court has to take into consideration the charge in law. Reddappa submitted' that once a decree has been passed by a trial court and if it is appealed, then it becomes a decree under appeal. Therefore the Appellate court has seized of the whole case when an appeal is pending before it. The Appellate court has to take into consideration the charge in law. In the instant case a decree has been passed when there is a change in Jaw. Therefore while passing a decree, this court has to take into consideration the change in law. I hope that there is some force in the contention of mr. Reddapa. Under these circumstances and facts discussed above, i hope that the appeal is to be allowed in part and the decree passed in so far it relates to eastern portion is concerned, is liable to be reversed. ( 7 ) IN the result the appeal is partly allowed. For the sake of clarity, I pass the following Order: the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Judge and munsiff in so far it relates to eastern portion of the property are set aside. Therefore the defendant is directed to vacate and deliver possession of the suit schedule premises except the eastern portion mentioned in the plaint. So far the arrears of rent is concerned, it is confirmed. So far as the mesne profits is concerned, it is only in respect of the western portion. The trial court shall make an enquiry in that regard under order 20 Rule 12 of the C. P. C. With this modification, decree shall be drawn. No costs. --- *** --- .