DR. G. RANGANATHA IYENGAR VS. TELANG TRUST, BANGALORE ( 1 ) SINCE both these revision petitions are directed against the order dated 23rd of December, 1995 made in H. R. C. No. 3351 of 1983 by the II Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Judge"), they are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) IN H. R. R. P. No. 470 of 1996, the petitioner, who is the tenant, has challenged the order passed by the learned Judge directing his eviction under Section 21 (1) (c) of the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). ( 3 ) IN H. R. R. P. No. 566 of 1996, the petitioner, who is the landlord, has challenged the order passed by the learned Judge rejecting his claim for eviction of the tenant under Section 21 (1) (a), (d) and (h) of the Act. ( 4 ) IN these revision petitions, the parties will hereinafter referred to as the "landlord" and "tenant". ( 5 ) SRI Chikkanagoudar, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant, challenged the order under revision primarily on two grounds. Firstly, he challenged the order under revision on the ground that it is one without jurisdiction and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Elaborating this submission, he pointed out that it is the case of the landlord that the landlord is a Charitable trust. In this connection, he drew my attention to paragraph 7 (a) of the H. R. C. petition, wherein the landlord has claimed that it is a Charitable Trust running for needy persons. He also drew my attention to the averment made at paragraph 3 of the memorandum of revision petition in h. R. R. P. No. 566 of 1996 wherein the landlord has asserted that it is a Charitable Trust. He also drew my attention to the averment made at paragraph 3 of the memorandum of revision petition in h. R. R. P. No. 566 of 1996 wherein the landlord has asserted that it is a Charitable Trust. Therefore, he submitted that since, on undisputed facts, the landlord is a Charitable Trust, in view of the amendment made to the Act by means of Act No. 32 of 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the amending Act"), which came into force with effect from 18th of May, 1994, wherein the provisions of the Act have been made inapplicable to the premises belonging to a Muzrai institution or a Religious or a Charitable Institution, the eviction petition filed by the landlord against the tenant before the Court of Small Cause Judge was required to be rejected on the ground that subsequent to the coming into force of the amending Act, the eviction petition instituted by the landlord invoking the provisions of the Act ceased to be maintainable. He further submitted that at any event of the matter, on the date of the passing of the order under revision, since the provisions of the Act were made inapplicable to a Charitable Institution, the court of Small Cause Judge did not have jurisdiction to pass the order under revision. In support of his submission, he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of BHS Managing committee v Sringeri Mutt. Secondly, he challenged the finding recorded by the learned Judge against the tenant under Section 21 (1) (c) of the Act on several grounds. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, it is the case of the landlord that the claim made by him for eviction of the tenant under Section 21 (1) (a) (d) and (h) of the Act is erroneous in law. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, in the light of what is set out above, the questions that would arise for consideration in these revision petitions are: (1) Whether the order under revision is liable to be set aside on the ground that since the provisions of the Act are made inapplicable with effect from 18th of May, 1994, the proceedings instituted by the landlord for eviction of the tenant with effect from the date of the coming into force of the amending Act were not maintainable and consequently, the order under revision is the one without jurisdiction? (2) If it is held that the proceedings pending before the learned Judge was entitled to be continued even after the coming into force of the amending Act and the learned Judge had jurisdiction to pass the order under revision, whether the finding recorded by the learned Judge under Section 21 (1) (a), (c), (d) and (h) of the Act is liable to be set aside? re: Question (1): ( 8 ) I find considerable force in the submission of Sri Chikkanagoudar that with effect from the date of coming into force of the amending Act. e. , 18th of May, 1994, wherein the provisions of the Act are made inapplicable to the premises belonging to a Muzrai Institution or a Religious or charitable Institution, the eviction petition instituted by the landlord invoking the provisions of the Act before the Court constituted under the Act ceased to be maintainable and the order under revision, which was passed on 23rd of December, 1995, was the one without jurisdiction. The act is a special enactment which, to a certain extent interferes with the right of a landlord to enjoy the immovable properties belonging to him. Sub-section (7) (bb) (iii) of Section 2 of the Act prior to the amending Act, provided among other things, that nothing in the Act would apply to a muzrai Institution or a Religious or Charitable Institution under the management of the State government. However, by means of amendment made to the said provision by means of the amending Act with effect from 18th of May, 1994, the words "under the management of the state Government" came to be omitted. Therefore, it is clear that with effect from 18th of May, 1994, the provisions of the Act are made inapplicable to all the premises belonging to a Muzrai institution or a Religious or Charitable Institution. From the averments made in the eviction petition and also the averment made in the revision petition Filed by the landlord, it is clear that the landlord is a Charitable Institution; and, therefore, for such an Institution, the provisions of the Act are inapplicable from the date of the coming into force of the amending Act. Therefore, the only question is whether the proceedings instituted prior to the coming into force of the Act, are saved and the Court bad the jurisdiction to pass the order under revision? Therefore, the only question is whether the proceedings instituted prior to the coming into force of the Act, are saved and the Court bad the jurisdiction to pass the order under revision? As noticed by me earlier, the answer should be in the negative. The language employed under sub-section (7) (bb) (iii) of Section 2 of the Act, as noticed by me earlier, in unequivocal terms, states that nothing in the Act shall apply to any premises belonging to a Charitable Institution. Therefore, from the date of the coming into force of the Act, the premises belonging to a Charitable institution are brought out of the purview of the Act and the protection given to a tenant under the Act also came to be removed. The Act is a special enactment which created a forum to enforce the rights of the parties under the Act. Section 3 (d) of the Act defines a Court for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, on the date of the coming into force of the amending Act, the Rent control Court, in my view, had ceased to have jurisdiction either to entertain the petition for eviction of a tenant from a premises belonging to a Religious Institution or to continue the pending proceedings in respect of the premises belonging to such an Institution. It is necessary to point out that there is no provision made in the Act to save the pending proceedings. The amending Act also did not provide for such a contingency. The Court will have to take into consideration the subsequent amendment made to the Act by means of an amending provision. Therefore, I am of the view that though the provisions of the Act were applicable to the premises belonging to a Muzrai Institution or a Religious or Charitable Institution on the date of filing of the eviction petition and the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition on the date of filing of the petition, however, in view of the subsequent amendment made to the Act by means of Act No. 32 of 1994, as stated above, the eviction petition filed by the landlord ceases to be maintainable before the Rent Control Court from the date of the coming into force of the Act. When an amended provision of an Act comes into force, in a situation stated above, it is the amended provision of the Act that has to be applied and not the old provision which has ceased to exist. Consequently, the order under revision being the one admittedly passed subsequent to the coming into force of the Act, is one without jurisdiction. The view I have taken above, is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of BHS Managing Committee, supra, wherein my learned Brother Justice Farooq, has observed as follows: "when a proceeding pending before the Lower Court, which is the Rent Control Court under the act its jurisdiction has been taken away by virtue of the amendment. The amendment taking away its jurisdiction came into force on 18-5-1994. From the said date the Lower Court could not have passed an order in a proceedings instituted by a religious or charitable institution in view of the amendment Act. The impugned order has been passed on 25-11-1994 by which time the amended Act has already come into force". ( 9 ) IN view of my above conclusion on Question No. (1), I am of the view that it is unnecessary to consider Question No. (2), referred to above. ( 10 ) IN the light of the discussion made above, order dated 23rd of December, 1995 made in h. R. C. No. 3351 of 1983 by the Court of the II Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, is hereby set aside and the H. R. C. No. 3351 of 1983 filed by the landlord is dismissed as not maintainable. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, H. R. R. P. No. 470 of 1996 filed by the tenant is allowed and H. R. R. P. No. 566 of 1996 filed by the landlord is dismissed.