K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 27th June, 1989 passed by the learned District Judge in Revision Petition No. 64/1987 confirming the order dated 4-8-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff, Davangere in H. R. C. No. 6/1983 allowing LA. No. VII filed by respondents 2 to 4 for impleading. ( 2 ) THE first respondent-M. Ramnathappa has filed H. R. C. No. 6/1983 for eviction of the petitioners herein on the ground falling under Section 21 (l) (h) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The case pleaded by Sri Ramnalhappa is that the schedule premises in a partition has fallen to the share of respondents 2 to 4; that it is required for their bona fide use and occupation for carrying on a business by them. The petition was filed in the year 1983. According to the case of the petitioners/tenants, Sri Ramnathappa had no concern with the schedule property and he was not the landlord and that the partition had taken place as long back as on 8-5-1976 itself and subsequent to the partition they have been paying the rents to respondents 2 to 4 to whose share the schedule properties had fallen. ( 3 ) AS the pleadings stood at this, respondents 2 to 4 filed an application for being impleaded as petitioners in the case under Order 1, Rule 10 of C. P. C. The Trial court has allowed it on the ground that they are the necessary parties to the proceeding because they are the landlords of the premises and the learned District judge has affirmed the order. ( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners/tenants that the Trial Court acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing respondents 2 to 4 to come on record as petitioners in a proceeding which was filed by M. Ramnathappa and as such it was not maintainable. M. Ramnathappa ceased to have any interest in the schedule premises no sooner the partition took place under a registered deed dated 8-5-1976 as in that partition the schedule premises came to be allotted to respondents 2 to 4. Not only that from 1976 they have been receiving the rent from the tenants - the petitioners herein. M. Ramnathappa ceased to have any interest in the schedule premises no sooner the partition took place under a registered deed dated 8-5-1976 as in that partition the schedule premises came to be allotted to respondents 2 to 4. Not only that from 1976 they have been receiving the rent from the tenants - the petitioners herein. As such M. Ramnathappa could not have filed an application under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act. Even if Sri Ramnathappa was a rent collector he could not have maintained the petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act. As per the explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act 'for the purpose of clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the expression 'landlord' shall not include a rent farmer or rent collector or estate manager'. Therefore, respondents 2 to 4 alone could have filed the eviction petition for possession under section 21 (1) (h) of the Act. ( 5 ) THUS, on the face of it, the petition for eviction filed under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act by Ramnathappa was not maintainable. The pleas raised by Ramnathappa on behalf of his sons could not have been attributed to the sons because there was no joint family existing and the partition had taken place on 8-5-1976 itself. He does not hold power of attorney from respondents 2 to 4 to file the present petition. The court exercising jurisdiction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act is required to act within the four corners of the Act. It cannot exercise the powers just like any other Civil Court. The jurisdiction is limited by the provisions contained in the Act. No doubt under Rule 35 of the Karnataka Rent Control Rules, 1961, in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided by the Rules, the Court shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure code. But this does not in any way override the special provisions contained in the act. As per the provisions of the Act, the petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act cannot be maintained by a rent collector. But this does not in any way override the special provisions contained in the act. As per the provisions of the Act, the petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act cannot be maintained by a rent collector. Sri Ramnathappa, even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that he is a rent collector, which fact is not admitted by the tenants because it is their case that respondents 2 to 4 are collecting the rents, even then the petition could not have been maintained under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act by Ramnathappa. In such a petition, the Court could not have allowed respondents 2 to 4 to come on record and continue the petition. The only course left to the trial court and respondents 2 to 4 was to file a separate petition. It is not a case in which there is any scope for committing any bona fide mistake in initiating the proceeding for eviction by Ramanalhappa - the father of respondents 2 to 4. The presence of respondents 2 to 4 before the Court is also not necessary to decide the petition as brought by Ramanathappa because on the face of it the proceeding is not maintainable. That being so, it is clear that the trial Court and the learned District judge have acted illegally in exercise of their jurisdiction in allowing the application. ( 6 ) IN the light of this conclusion reached by me, the decisions relied upon by Sri Manjunath, learned counsel for the respondents reported in The Managing Director (MIG), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , Balanagar, Hyderabad and Another v Ajit prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR 1973 SC 76 ; H. S. Siddappa v Lakshmamma and another, 1965 (1) Mys. L. J. 232; and KR, Rajagopalaiah Setty v N, Radhakrishna, 1984 (1) Kar. L. C. , 72 cannot be of any assistance. Whenever the Courts-below commit an illegality in exercise of their jurisdiction, it is open to this Court to interfere under Section 115 of the C. P. C. as long as such interference does not result in injustice and whereas it results in aiding justice and keeps the Courts-below within their bounds. Therefore, I am of the view that the orders passed by the courts-below are required to be set aside. Therefore, I am of the view that the orders passed by the courts-below are required to be set aside. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 27-6-1989 passed in Revision Petition No. 64/1987 by the learned District judge and also the order dated 4-8-1987 passed in H. R. C. No. 6 of 1983 by the learned Munsiff, Davangere, are hereby set aside. The application I. A. No. VII filed by respondents 2 to 4 is rejected reserving liberty to them to file a separate petition under the provisions of the Act. --- *** --- .