Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 362 (KAR)

MRS. MADHURI v. VENKAVVA

2004-06-15

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2004
MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein claiming to be the tenant under the respondent filed HRC. No. 144/99 before the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Belgaum under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "old Act') praying for permission to deposit the rent of the petition premises. The respondent herein filed objections inter alia contending that there is no relationship between the petitioner and respondent as tenant and landlord; that the Trustees of the Public Trust have no power to create lease without the previous sanction of the Charity commissioner and consequently prayed for dismissal of HRC petition. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) after perusal of the material on record, including the oral and documentary evidence lead on behalf of the petitioner, rejected the petition by holding that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioner herein and consequently the petitioner cannot be allowed to deposit rent before the Court under Section 19 of the old Act. ( 2 ) THE said order passed in HRC. No. 144/ 99 is confirmed by the learned II Addl. District Judge, belgaum, in HRC. RP. No. 43/2001. The District Court concurred with the Trial Court by observing that the question of permitting the petitioner to deposit rent in the Court under Section 19 of the old Act does not arise as his alleged tenancy is denied by landlord. Assailing the correctness of both the orders, this revision petition is filed by invoking Section 115 of C. P. C. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the old Act of 1961 is repealed and in its place Karnataka Rent Act of 1999 (hereinafter called as "new Act') is enacted by the State legislature and the same came into force with effect from 31. 12. 2000. Thus, the new Act came into force during the pendency of the revision petition before the District Court In this view of the matter, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the District Court had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition, inasmuch as, the said revision should have been transferred to the deputy Commissioner for hearing the matter as an appeal under Section 26 of the new Act. ( 4 ) SECTION 19 of the old Act corresponds to Section 17 of the new Act. ( 4 ) SECTION 19 of the old Act corresponds to Section 17 of the new Act. One of the major change in Section 17 of the New Act is that the petition will lie before the Controller and not before the court. Section 17 (1) of the new Act reads thus: section 17: Deposit of rent arid other charges by the tenant.- (1) Where the landlord does not accept any rent and other charges tendered by the tenant within the time and the manner referred to in Section 16 or refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt referred to therein, or where there is a bonafide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent and other charges are payable, the tenant may deposit such rent and other charges with the Controller in the prescribed manner. Section 26 of the new Act makes provision for filing appeal in certain occasions which reads thus: section 26 :- Appeal : Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller under the provisions of chapters II, III or IV may within thirty days from the date thereof; appeal, (i) to the Deputy Commissioner when the officer passing the order is an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner; and (ii) to the Assistant Commissioner in any other case; and the appellate authority may pass such order in appeal as it deems fit. Section 69 of the new Act deals with transfer of pending cases, Section 69 reads thus: section 69 :- Transfer of pending cases. On the commencement of this Act, (1) All cases pertaining to matters in respect of which the Controller shall have jurisdiction under this Act and pending in the Court under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, shall stand transferred to the Controller and the Controller may proceed to hear such cases either de novo or from the stage it was at the time of such transfer. (2) all cases pertaining to matters in respect of which the Court shall have jurisdiction under this act and pending before the Controller under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 shall stand transferred to the Court and the Court may proceed to hear such cases either de-novo or from the stage it was at the time of such transfer. (2) all cases pertaining to matters in respect of which the Court shall have jurisdiction under this act and pending before the Controller under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 shall stand transferred to the Court and the Court may proceed to hear such cases either de-novo or from the stage it was at the time of such transfer. It is relevant to note here itself the provision of Section 70 (2) (b) of the new Act which reads thus: section 70 (2) (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 off 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. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that, when the matter was pending before the District Court in revision petition, the new Act came into force. It is also not in dispute that the new Act is applicable to the premises in question. As the Trial Court had already disposed off the matter even prior to coming into force of new Act, Section 69 of the new Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, as could be seen from the provisions of Section 70 (2) (b) of the new Act, all cases and proceedings other than the execution proceedings pending at the commencement of the new act before the District Court shall be continued and disposed off by such District Court itself in accordance with the provisions of the new Act. In view of the same, the District Court wherein the revision petition was pending had jurisdiction to hear the said revision petition on merits. Hence, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the District Court in this case is without jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 26 of the new Act are not applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, the original order is not passed by the Controller, but, by the Court. 7. Hence, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the District Court in this case is without jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 26 of the new Act are not applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, the original order is not passed by the Controller, but, by the Court. 7. Looking to the wordings employed in Section 17 of the New Act and 19 of the Old Act, a person cannot be permitted to deposit rent before Controller/ Court under the said provisions if he is not the tenant of the petition premises under the landlord. As, in this case, jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent is disputed by the landlord, both the Courts below have rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner made under Section 19 of the old Act. Even under the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the new Act, the prayer of the tenant-petitioner cannot be granted as the landlord has denied alleged tenancy of the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below. Revision Petition is therefore rejected.