( 1 ) THE petitioner is a tenant in this case. The petitioner filed an eviction petition in H. R. C. No. 170/93 on the file of the Junior Division, Mysore against the petitioner and sought for eviction of the petition u/s. 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Act. Objections were filed by the petitioner denying relationship. The Trial Judge ordered eviction in terms of an order dated 27. 1. 1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition on the file of the II Addl. Dist. Judge, Mysore. During the pendency of the said revision proceedings, new Karnataka Rent Act of 1999 was brought into force on 4. 12. 2001. In the light of this new Act, IA-II was filed by the petitioner to stop the proceedings. The said application stood rejected. The petitioner aggrieved by IA-III is before me. ( 2 ) HEARD the Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. ( 3 ) ADMITTED facts reveal of an adverse order against the tenant. Revision proceedings are pending. In the revision proceeding, the petitioner-tenant wanted stay of further proceedings in terms of Section 43 of the Rent Act of 1999. Section 43 of the New Act deals with dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant. Sub Section 1 of Section 43 provides for where in any proceedings before the Court, a contention is raised denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties it shall be lawful for the Court to accept the document of lease or where there is no document of lease, a receipt of acknowledgement of payment of rent purported to be signed by the landlord a prima facie evidence or relationship and proceed to hear the case. Sub Section 2 provides for where a) the least pleaded is oral and either party denies relationship, and no receipt of acknowledgement of payment of rent as referred to in sub-Section (1) above is produced, or b) in the opinion of the Court there is reason to suspect the genuine existence of the document of lease or the receipt or acknowledgement of payment of rent, the Court shall at once stop all further proceedings before it and direct the parties to approach a competent Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights. ( 4 ) A careful reading of Section 43 would show that Section 43 is only applicable to the original proceedings and not to the revisional proceedings. The Court as referred to in Section 43 has to be understood as the Original Court and not the Revisional Court. Any acceptance of the submission of the petitioner would defeat an order of the Court after contest by the parties. That is not the intention of Section 43. Section 43 is an enabling provision in the matter of decision with regard to relationship between landlord and tenant. When parties go before the original Court and the original Court decides the relation issue after contest, it is not open to the tenant or the landlord as the case may be to stop the proceedings after an order passed after contest. In fact, this view of mine is supported by the wordings of Section 43 itself. Section 43 provides for stoppage of all further proceedings before it and direct the parties to approach Competence Court etc. , The Court in terms of the Act would mean the original Court. It would depend upon the area in terms of Section 3-C. The wordings of Court and the stoppage of further proceedings before it would in fact show the intention of the legislature in confining the stoppage of proceedings before the original Court. Only that stoppage cannot be extended to a Revisional Court. The learned Judge is therefore right in his findings with regard to the stoppage of proceedings. No grounds. Petition stands rejected. --- *** --- .