ORDER This is landlord’s revision petition filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, 'the Rent Act') challenging the order dated 20-8-2005 passed in LA. No. III filed by the L.Rs of the tenant under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, in H.RC. No. 299 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Small Causes Judge at Bangalore City. 2. The petitioners/landlords are represented by Sri A.V. Gangadharappa. The respondents/L.Rs of the tenant are represented by Sri V. Vishwanath. 3. With the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, heard arguments for final disposal. 4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the revision petition may be stated as under: The petitioners filed an eviction petition against the original tenant Venkatagiriyappa under Section 27(2)(e) and (h) of the Rent Act, which came to be registered in H.RC. No. 299 of 2003 on "the file of the Additional Small Causes at Bangalore City. The tenant entered appearance and filed objections. In support of the case of the landlords, petitioner 1-Krishnappa got himself examined as P.W. 1 and got marked certain documents. On behalf of the tenants, R.W. 1 was examined. On 28-10-2004, the original tenant died. The legal representatives of the tenant were brought on record. After the legal representatives came on record, they filed LA. No. III under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Rent act praying the Trial Court to implicate the inheritability of tenancy in the petition. The petitioners/landlords filed objection. The learned Trial Judge after hearing arguments on LA. No. III, and for the reasons stated in the impugned order allowed the application and dismissed the eviction petition as the same is hit by Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act. This is impugned in this revision petition. 5. Sri A.V. Gangadharappa learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Court below misconstrued the Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act. The order made by the Trial Court dismissing the eviction petition is erroneous and the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. This is impugned in this revision petition. 5. Sri A.V. Gangadharappa learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Court below misconstrued the Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act. The order made by the Trial Court dismissing the eviction petition is erroneous and the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since Section 5(1) gives protection to the legal heirs of the deceased tenant to inherit the tenancy for a period of five years from the date of death of the tenant, the landlord's eviction petition is barred by law. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly allowed the application and dismissed the eviction petition and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 7. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learned Counsels for the parties, the only question that arise for consideration is: Whether eviction petition is liable to be dismissed on account of death of a original tenant as hit by Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999? My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons: Section 5 of the Rent Act reads as under: “5. Inheritability of tenancy.-(1) In the event of death of a tenant, the right of tenancy shall devolve for a period of five years from the date of his death to his successors in the following order, namely.- (a) Spouse: (b) Son or daughter or where there are both son and daughter both of them: (c) Parents; (d) Daughter-in-law, being the widow of his predeceased son: Provided that the successor has ordinarily been living or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant as a member of his family upto the date of his death and was dependent on the deceased tenant: Provided further that a right to tenancy shall not devolve upon a successor in case such successor or his spouse or any of his dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the local area in relation to the premises let. (2) If a person, being a successor mentioned in sub-section (1), was ordinarily living in or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant but was not dependent on him on the date of his death, or he or his spouse or any of this dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the local area in relation to the premises let to which this Act applies, such successor shall acquire a right to continue in possession as a tenant for a limited period of one year from the date of death of the tenant; and, on the expiry of that period, or on his death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue in possession of the premises shall become extinguished.” 8. Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, which came into force with effect from 31-12-2001, says that the right of tenancy shall devolve for a period of five years from the date of death of the tenant, on his successors. It is pertinent to mention that in view of Sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act, the Trial Court, holding that the eviction petition was hit under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, is not correct. Section 5 in Chapter II of the Karnataka Rent Act, dealing with regulation of rent, cannot be read in isolation. In other words, Section 5 shall be read ill conjunction with Sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31of the Karnataka Rent Act. Section 5 of the Act neither takes away nor postpone the grounds of eviction given to the landlords under Section 27, and the right conferred upon certain landlords/persons under Sections 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act. The learned Trial Judge has misconstrued the provision. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. For the reasons stated above, I pass the following orders: The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court with a direction to dispose of the case in accordance with law. No costs. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court for further proceedings, without notice on 15-12-2005. Return the records to the Trial Court for the with.