ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. We are of the view that the High Court has erred in applying Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, holding that the dispute as to title has to be decided in a civil suit and the eviction petition is not maintainable. Having regard to the undisputed case of the respondent that he was paying rent to the appellant and as regards that, no dispute was ever raised in the written statement or at any stage prior to the commencement of this eviction proceedings, there is no scope to invoke Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act. The High Court referred to the litigation between the temple, which the appellant claims to have title to the property, and a third party in the earlier proceedings and made an observation that there is a serious dispute as to its title, without considering whether the conditions stipulated in Section 43 were satisfied or not. The High Court is, therefore, not justified in stopping the proceedings by invoking Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act. The appeals are allowed and the proceedings before the trial court shall continue and shall be decided on merits. 4. We are informed that there is a title suit pending between the temple, which is the plaintiff in OS No. 3684 of 2003, and the petitioner in these appeals. That suit will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made herein. The claims between the parties therein are left open.