( 1 ) ALL the appellants are tenants except the appellant in W. A. No. 62 of 1999 is a Charitable Trust. However, all the appellants challenge the constitutional validity of Section 2 (7) (b) (iii) and (iv) and the Explanation thereto of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge by an order dated 17th of December, 1997 disposed of a batch of writ petitions upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned sections. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Single Judge these writ appeals have been filed. ( 4 ) THESE writ appeals appear to be an exercise in futility since the introduction of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Rent Act received the assent of the President on 22nd day of November, 2001 (Karnataka Act no. 34 of 2001 ). It was published in the Gazette on 27th of November, 2001 and came into force by a Notification dated 5-12-2001. ( 5 ) SECTION 70 of the Rent Act repeals the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961 ). Section 70 of the Rent Act reads as follows. "70. Repeal and Savings. (1) The Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal and subject to the provisions of Section 69. (a) all proceedings in execution of any decree or order passed under the repealed Act, and pending at the commencement of this act, in any Court shall be continued and disposed of by such Court as if the said enactment had not been repealed; (b) all cases and proceedings other than those referred to in clause (a) pending at the commencement of this Act before the controller, Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, court, District Judge or the High Court or other authority, as the case may be in respect of the premises to which this Act applies shall be continued and disposed of by such Controller, Deputy commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, Court, District Judge or the High Court or other authority in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (c) all other cases and proceedings pending in respect of premises to which this Act does not apply shall as from the date of commencement of the Act stand abated. (3) Except as otherwise provided in Section 69 and in sub-section (2) of this section, provisions of Section 6 of the karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 (Karnataka Act No. III of 1899), shall so far as may be applicable in respect of repeal of the said enactment, and Sections 8 and 24 of the said Act shall be applicable as if the said enactment had been repealed and re-enacted by this Act". ( 6 ) ALL the appellants before this Court do not come within the provisions of Section 70, sub-section (2) (a ). In other words none of the appellants have suffered any decree or order under the repealed Act at the time of the commencement of the Rent Act. If any order was passed under the provisions of the repealed Rent Control Act, then the appellants may have been entitled to the relief, if in accordance with law under the provisions of the old Act as per Section 70 (2) (a) of the Rent act. Since all the appellants before this Court have not suffered any decree or order and therefore would come only within the provisions of the Rent Act. However, what is challenged before us is the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 which has been repealed by the introduction of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. That is why we state that the exercise is one in futility. ( 7 ) MR. Mohandas Hegde, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that Section 2 gives an exemption under the Rent Act to premises owned by the State Government or the Central Government or a local authority, a muzrai or religious or charitable institution or a wakf. He also submitted that Section 2 (7) (bb) and the Explanation thereof of the repealed Act which is under challenge is identical with Section 2 (3) read with Explanation of the new Act insofar as it relates to muzrai or religious or charitable institution or a wakf. It is indeed correct to state that the exemption given under Section 2 (7) (bb) and the Explanation thereof of the repealed Act is identical with Section 2 (3) and the Explanation thereof of the Rent Act insofar as it relates to muzrai or religious or charitable institutions or wakf. It is indeed correct to state that the exemption given under Section 2 (7) (bb) and the Explanation thereof of the repealed Act is identical with Section 2 (3) and the Explanation thereof of the Rent Act insofar as it relates to muzrai or religious or charitable institutions or wakf. It is possible for us to uphold the constitutional validity under the provisions of the Rent Act on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Christ the King Cathedral v john Ancheril and Another. The Supreme Court dealt with the exemption granted to public premises in public interest with respect to buildings belonging to churches, mosques and all minority religious institutions. The Supreme Court upheld the exemption on the ground that public religious or charitable endowments or trusts constitute a well-recognised group and clearly falls into a class distinguished from the buildings owned by private landlords. The Supreme Court relying on an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Kandaswamy Chethar v state of Tamil Nadu and Another, pronounced as follows:"6. The law had been stated by this Court to the effect that public religious or charitable endowments or trusts constitute a well-recognised group which serves not only public purposes, but disbursement of their income is governed by the objects with which they are created and buildings belonging to such endowments or trusts clearly fall into a class distinct from the buildings owned by private landlords. It is in respect of three areas a regulation would be made under the Act. as has been done in other similar enactments and these areas are (i) with respect to regulations of lease of buildings (residential or non-residential); (ii) control of rent of such buildings; and (iii) control of eviction of tenants from such buildings. A public trust, as has been held in S. Kandaswamay chettiar's case, supra, is not likely to unreasonably act either in the matter of enhancement of rent or eviction of tenants being institutions of religion or charity. On that basis, this Court upheld the validity of the exemption granted under the Tamil Nadu Act in favour of such trust or endowment. In the present case, the contention has been specifically put forth that the appellants fall into that very category which came up for consideration before this Court in S. Kandaswarny Chettiar's case, supra. On that basis, this Court upheld the validity of the exemption granted under the Tamil Nadu Act in favour of such trust or endowment. In the present case, the contention has been specifically put forth that the appellants fall into that very category which came up for consideration before this Court in S. Kandaswarny Chettiar's case, supra. Therefore, no distinction can be made between that class of owners of the buildings in that case and in the present case. We do not understand as to what other material was required by the Court in a matter of this nature if the contention put forth before this Court is not that Churches or Mosques, Dioceses, arch-dioceses, Monasteries, Convents, Wakfs and Madarsas are not religious and charitable in nature". ( 8 ) HOWEVER, it would not be open for this Court to deal with the validity of Section 2 (7) (bb) (iii) and (iv) and the Explanation given thereto of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 since the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961 has been repealed with the introduction of the karnataka Rent Act, 1999 which has come into force on 5-12-2001. ( 9 ) IN these circumstances, we decline to entertain the writ appeals since what is sought to be quashed does not exist in the eye of law as the Rent Control Act has been repealed on 5-12-2001 with the introduction of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (Karnataka Act No. 34 of 2001 ). The writ appeals are dismissed as having become infructuous. --- *** --- .