H. G. RAMESH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition by the tenant is directed against the order of the revisional Court dated 27. 03. 2004 allowing the application-IA No. 3 filed by the landlord in Rent Revision Petition No. 15/ 2001 under Section 29 (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 which corresponds to section 45 (4) of the new Rent Act. e. the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (the 'new Rent Act' for short ). By the impugned order, the revisional Court by invoking Section 45 (4) of the new Rent act has stopped all further proceedings and has directed the petitioner/tenant to put the respondent/landlord in possession of the petition premises. ( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as section 45 of the new Rent Act does not apply to a revision petition preferred or prosecuted by the landlord. In support of his submission, he relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in abdul HAMEED YOUSUFF SAIT v. KALAVATI, 1969 RCR 60 and a judment of this Court in N. A. AMEER AHMED v. KARIYAPPA, 1970 Mys. L. J. Sh. N 309. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid judgments fully support the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is relevant to extract Section 45 of the new Rent Act: "45. L. J. Sh. N 309. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid judgments fully support the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is relevant to extract Section 45 of the new Rent Act: "45. Deposit and payment of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction.-(1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 27, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Court under that section or to prefer or prosecute a revision petition under Section 46 against an order made by the Court on application under section 27 unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Court or the District judge or the High Court, as the case may be, all arrears of rent and other charges due in respect of the premises upto the date of payment or deposits and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises at the rate at which it was last paid or agreed to be paid, until the termination of the proceedings before the Court or the District judge or the High Court, as the case may be. (2) The deposit of the rent and other charges under Sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed and shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed for the service of the notice referred to in Sub-section (5) (3) Where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent and other charges to be paid or deposited under Sub-section (1), the Court shall, on application made to it either by the tenant or the landlord and after making such enquiry as it deems necessary determine summarily the rent to be so paid or deposited. (4) If any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Court, the District Judge or the high Court as the case may be, shall unless the tenant has shown sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises or dismiss the appeal or revision petition, as the case may be. (5) When any deposit is made under Sub-section (1) the Court, the District Judge or the High court, as the case may be, shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord in the prescribed manner and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in this behalf. " (underlining is mine) a plain reading of Sub-section (1) above would show that Section 45 does not apply to a revision petition preferred or prosecuted by the landlord. In the present case, the revision petition before the first revisional Court was preferred by the landlord and hence in such a proceeding, stopping of further proceedings and ordering of eviction by invoking Section 45 of the new Rent act is not permissible. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the revisional Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has no objection for the respondent to withdraw the rent deposited by the petitioner with this Court. As prayed by the respondent's Counsel, the amount lying in deposit with this Court shall be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Bagalkot to enable the landlord to withdraw the amount. ( 5 ) IN view of the above, I make the following order: i ). The impugned order is set aside. ii ). The matter is remitted to the revisional Court with a direction to dispose of the revision petition in RR. No. 15/2001 on merits and within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this Order. iii ). The amount lying in deposit with this Court shall be transferred to the Court of the District judge, Bagalkot. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms.