ORDER 1. Delay condoned in filing the application for substitution. 2. Application for substitution is allowed. The applicants are taken on record in place of the deceased appellant to prosecute the proceedings. 3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 23-2-2001 in HRRP No. 340 of 1998. By the impugned judgment the High Court has upheld the judgment and order passed by the courts below dismissing the eviction petition filed by the appellant landlord under Section 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short "the 1961 Act"). 4. The appellant sought eviction of the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement. According to him, he is a science graduate with specialisation in the field of photography. He retired from the National (Aeronautical Laboratory (NAL) in the year 1986. After his retirement he has been running his photography work at his residence and the suit premises were required by him for using it as "dark room" as the accommodation available with him at his residence was insufficient. During the pendency of the revision, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short "the 1999 Act") came into force repealing the 1961 Act. In sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of I Section 70 of the 1999 Act relating to repeal and savings, it is provided that all cases and proceedings other than those referred to in clause (a) and pending at the commencement of the 1999 Act in respect of the premises to which the 1999 Act is applicable, shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Act. It is not disputed before us that the High Court while dismissing the revision, did not take note of the fact that the revision had to be decided keeping in view the 1999 Act. 5. Since the High Court failed to take note of the fact that the revision petition was required to be decided in the light of the 1999 Act, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the case is remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 6. Needless to mention, nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the dispute. 6. Needless to mention, nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the dispute. The High Court shall proceed to decide the revision in the light of the 1999 Act without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.