ORDER : H.P. Sandesh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. These two revision petitions are filed by the petitioners-respondent Nos.2, 3(a) to 3(c) and 4 to 7 before the Trial Court praying to set aside the order 03.08.2021 passed in H.R.C.No.3/2013 by the learned III Additional Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. and the order dated 05.04.2024 passed in Rev. (Rent) Nos.14/2021 and 10/2021 by the learned IV Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K. Mangaluru. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners before the Trial Court is that while seeking the relief of eviction, invoked the provisions of Section 27 (2)(r) and 31(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 directing the respondents to vacate and surrender the vacant possession of petition premises to the petitioners. The petition property is a non-agricultural immovable property residential building bearing Door No.4-1-77, R.S.No.394, T.S.No.227, East Southern portion measuring 0-10 cents situated in Kodialbail Village and Ward, Mangaluru Taluk within the Mangalore City Corporation and within the registration Sub-District of Mangalore City (hereinafter referred to as ‘petition premises’). 4. It is the case of the original petitioner in H.R.C.No.3/2013 that her husband late Ranganath Rai along with his mother Smt. Akkamma Rai and brother Narayana Rai respectively had granted the petition premises on permanent lease in favour of late Narayana Shetty as per registered deed of transfer dated 27.07.1961. As per the terms of the deed, late Narayana Shetty was required to pay Rs.30/- per annum on or before 27 th July of next succeeding year. It is also the case of the original petitioner that the respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Narayana Shetty. The said late Narayana Shetty during his life time and after his death, his heirs (as legal representatives of respondents) have defaulted continuously in the payment of the annual rent for the past more than five years and as such, have contravened the terms of lease. As a result, the respondent’s moolgeni lease stood forfeited in terms of clause of the document of deed of transfer dated 27.07.1961. As a result, the respondent’s moolgeni lease stood forfeited in terms of clause of the document of deed of transfer dated 27.07.1961. It is also the case of the original petitioner that the petition premises is required for her own use and occupation as she is presently residing in the family house of her husband and there is paucity of space and lack of privacy in the above house for the petitioner. The petitioner has caused a registered legal notice dated 17.07.2012 through her advocate calling upon the respondents to surrender the vacant possession of petition premises in favour of the petitioner within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Having received the notice, the respondents got replied to the said legal notice on 31.07.2021 and also sought to tender arrears of moolageni along with the legal reply. Having received the same, the petitioner has returned the demand draft to the Advocate for respondents along with rejoinder reply dated 06.08.2012. It is also the case of the petitioner that the original tenant late Narayana Shetty died on 13.02.2008 and the respondents as his legal representatives have protection of Rent Act upto a period of five years i.e., till 13.02.2013. The respondents are bound to deliver the possession of petition premises immediately on 13.02.2013. Hence, the petitioners have filed the petition invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . 5. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Trial Court in H.R.C.No.3/2013, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 have filed a memo adopting the objection filed by the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has filed the objection contending that late Narayana Shetty had taken the petition premises on permanent tenancy rights and also stated that the said moolageni or permanent lease is irrevocable and the very nomenclature itself shows that it is a permanent tenancy. It is contended that the petitioner could not have invoked the Rent Act to levy blackmail against the respondents. The petitioner has also not stated how she is entitled to file the case under the Rent Act. It is further contended that petitioner is aware that deceased late Narayana Shetty during his lifetime had effected very vast improvements in the land taken on moolageni by him and now the property is very valuable and it is surprising that the petitioner has not even whispered a single word about it. It is further contended that petitioner is aware that deceased late Narayana Shetty during his lifetime had effected very vast improvements in the land taken on moolageni by him and now the property is very valuable and it is surprising that the petitioner has not even whispered a single word about it. It is contended that petitioner could not have terminated the tenancy without offering the value of improvements which the said late Narayana Shetty had effected. After his death, the respondents have spent lot of amounts on the petition premises and petition is premature, unwarranted and petition should be dismissed in limine. It is contended that Court has no such jurisdiction to decide about the improvements, right to terminate the moolageni or permanent tenancy and such other issues. It is further contended that description of the property given in the petition is not correct and sought for dismissal of the eviction petition. 6. The Trial Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the petition and the objection, allowed the parties to lead evidence and the Power of Attorney holder Smt. Devika Hegde, daughter and GPA holder of original petitioner is examined as P.W.1 by filing evidence affidavit in lieu of oral examination in chief and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The wife of petitioner No.1(b) is also examined as P.W.2 by filing an evidence affidavit in lieu of oral examination in chief and marked the documents as Exs.P18 to P20. The respondents did not adduce any evidence, but only cross- examined P.W.1. 7. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, framed the following points for consideration: “1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondents have defaulted in paying the annual rents as per moolageni chit dated 27/07/1961 thereby for an order of eviction against the respondents? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that she being a widow requires the petition premises for bonafide her use and occupation thereby for an order of eviction against the respondents under Section 27 (2)(r) R/w.31(1)(a) of Karnataka Rent Act 1999? 3. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent is liable to be evicted under Section 5 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ? 4. What Order or decree?”. 8. The Trial Court having appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered point Nos.1 and 3 as ‘affirmative’ and point No.2 as ‘negative’. 3. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent is liable to be evicted under Section 5 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ? 4. What Order or decree?”. 8. The Trial Court having appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered point Nos.1 and 3 as ‘affirmative’ and point No.2 as ‘negative’. While answering point No.2 regarding bonafide requirement, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that requirement of petition premises by the original petitioner for her bonafide occupation and use will not arise for consideration on account of death of her husband during the pendency of the case and declined to grant the relief under Section 27 (2)(r) and 31(1)(a) read with Section 5 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . However, allowed the petition in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners have defaulted in paying the annual rent as per the moolageni Chit date 27.07.1961 and also the respondents being the legal representatives of original tenant are liable to be evicted under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 on the ground that legal representatives of the original tenant are entitled to continue the premises for a period of five years. 9. The Trial Court also, while allowing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 , directed that the parties shall ascertain the value of improvements made in the petition property by four gentlemen within two months from the date of this order. On receipt of valuation of improvements made in the petition property, petitioner Nos.1(a) and 1(b) shall deduct the arrears of rent payable by the respondents and pay the balance value of improvements to the respondents. It is also directed that the respondents on receipt of value of improvements, shall handover the vacant possession of petition property along with improvements within one month from the date of amount and the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 27 (2)(r) and 31(1)(a) is dismissed. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the respondents in H.R.C.No.3/2013 have filed Rev. (Rent) No.10/2021 before the IV Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru challenging the order of the Trial Court passed in H.R.C.No.3/2013 dated 03.08.2021 allowing the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . 11. The Rent Revision Court having reassessed the grounds urged in Rev. (Rent) No.10/2021 before the IV Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru challenging the order of the Trial Court passed in H.R.C.No.3/2013 dated 03.08.2021 allowing the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . 11. The Rent Revision Court having reassessed the grounds urged in Rev. (Rent) No.10/2021 formulated the point whether the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned order of eviction against the respondents-tenants under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . The Rent Revision Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in allowing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and dismissed the rent revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. 12. The legal heirs of original petitioner also filed Rev. (Rent) No.14/2021 before the IV Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru challenging the rejection of the petition filed under Section 27 (2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and whether the Trial Court acted outside its jurisdiction allowing to make valuation and to make payment for eviction. The Rent Revision Court having reassessed the material available on record, considered the grounds urged in the petition regarding rejection of petition filed under Section 27 (2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and also questioning the impugned order of the Trial Court wherein direction was issued to ascertain the value of improvements and to make payment for eviction and answered point Nos.1 and 2 as ‘affirmative’ by allowing the rent revision and set aside the order of the Trial Court as to the relief sought under Section 27 (2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and to the extent of pre-condition to make valuation and to make payment for eviction. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rent Revision Court, these two petitions are filed by the original respondents questioning the order passed in both Rev. (Rent) Nos.10/2021 and 14/2021. 13. The revision petitioners in H.R.R.P.No.5/2024 would contend that the Courts below committed an error in considering the material available on record and entire approach made by the Courts into the matter is contrary and failed to appreciate the limited jurisdiction under which it is functioning under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . (Rent) Nos.10/2021 and 14/2021. 13. The revision petitioners in H.R.R.P.No.5/2024 would contend that the Courts below committed an error in considering the material available on record and entire approach made by the Courts into the matter is contrary and failed to appreciate the limited jurisdiction under which it is functioning under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . The said Act does not vest any jurisdiction on the Court to decide on the rights of permanent tenants and its alleged breach thereof. It is contended that availability of statutory protection alone is considered as it has very limited jurisdiction. It is contended that petitioners had tendered moolageni rent, their lease could not have been forfeited. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enforce forfeiture clause and claim possession, is again outside the jurisdiction of Rent Court. Further, the lease deed provided that unless the improvements are paid, they cannot be dispossessed and right to possession arises only after the respondents herein become entitled to it unlike a statutory tenant. It is contended that the Rent Court has no such jurisdiction to enquire into these aspects. The important questions of law have not been considered by the Courts below and both the Courts have treated the case as one on the original side of the Court and has gone beyond the scope of the Rent Act. It is contended that moolageni is a permanent tenancy and the person who lessee the property is called as ‘Moolagar’ and the lessee will be called as ‘Moolgenidar’ and this type of lease is prevailing only in Kanara District. The Moolagenidars become the second class of proprietors from whom nobody can deprive of their right of possession except their own act of gift or sale. A Moolagenidar is a tenant holding a perpetual lease, not removable so long as he pays rent and so long as he does not violate the stipulations of the lease entailing forfeiture. Moolageni tenure is a permanent heritable tenure alienable on some cases by the conditions of the moolageni chit, but in all cases perpetual, though subject to forfeiture for non-payment of rents. 14. The counsel would further contend that the Karnataka Rent Act applies only to statutory tenant and not to any other type of tenancies. The Courts below have failed to note this important difference between statutory tenants and moolageni tenants. 14. The counsel would further contend that the Karnataka Rent Act applies only to statutory tenant and not to any other type of tenancies. The Courts below have failed to note this important difference between statutory tenants and moolageni tenants. The Courts below have again wrongly interpreted the applicability of the provisions of Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulgeni or Volamulgeni Tenants Act, 2011 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that the Act has been upheld by the High Court of Karnataka, but is now pending consideration before the Supreme Court. The Court could not have expected the petitioners to prove in this case the steps taken by them to get conferment of ownership in respect of petition property. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in allowing the petition and contend that the very petition itself is not maintainable. It is also contended that petition is not filed under Section 27(a) regarding arrears of rent and when the petition is not filed under Section 27(a), payment for default of rent does not arise. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in LAXMIDAS BAPUDAS DARBAR AND ANOTHER VS. RUDRAVYA (SMT) AND OTHERS reported in (2001) 7 SCC 409 and relying upon this judgment, the counsel would contend that contractual act is very clear that it is a permanent lease and hence, the petitioners cannot be evicted and when there is a contractual terms and the lease is for a period of 99 years, question of invoking the Rent Act does not arise. The counsel would vehemently contend that conditions in Ex.P8 is very clear with regard to forfeiture clause and cannot seek eviction for arrears of rent directly and even if Court comes to the conclusion that arrears of rent is payable, time has to be given to pay the amount. When such being the case, it is contended that there is no cause of action. 16. When such being the case, it is contended that there is no cause of action. 16. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court Sections 6 and 10 of the Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulgeni or Volamulgeni Tenants Act, 2011 and brought to notice of this Court regarding bar of jurisdiction that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the competent authority or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to take note of said fact into consideration. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2 would vehemently contend that while filing the petition, the petitioners not only invoked the provisions under Section 27 (2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of Karnataka Rent Act and also sought for eviction under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . Learned counsel would vehemently contend that no dispute with regard to the fact that nature of tenancy is moolageni and brought to notice of this Court Section 3 and 3(h) regarding definition of premises and tenancy. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that in terms of lease which is marked as Ex.P8, it is very clear that annual rent is payable per annum and petitioners committed default in payment of rent and legal notice was issued and reply was given. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that original tenant died on 13.02.2008 and petition is filed after five years, since the right accrues to the legal representatives of original tenant for a period of five years and only after the period of five years, eviction petition is filed. 18. Learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2 also brought to notice of this Court judgment passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9975 of 2025 dated 07.04.2025. 18. Learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2 also brought to notice of this Court judgment passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9975 of 2025 dated 07.04.2025. The counsel referring this judgment brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.16 in respect of definition 2(g) as well as paragraph No.17, wherein discussion was made with regard to above Section which would indicate that the dependent heir of the original tenant unless she is the widow of the original tenant would be entitled to carry on as a tenant in such capacity for a period of 5 years from the demise of the original tenant. Learned counsel referring this judgment also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.45, wherein also discussion was made that in other words, the attempt on the part of the learned counsel was to persuade us to accept the argument that if Section 2(g) of the Act, 1997 is not applicable, then in such circumstances the petitioner has a right to continue in occupation of the premises in question as the legal heir of the original tenant. 19. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in House Rent Rev. Petition No.28 of 2021 dated 05.09.2024 and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.7 with regard to tenancy of mulgeni and paragraph No.16 and so also paragraph No.25, wherein discussion was made in respect of Section 5 of the Rent Act is concerned and comes to the conclusion that Rent Act is applicable to the case on hand and contend that similar set of facts was considered in the said petition and the counsel brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.31, wherein an observation is made that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court and co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is crystal clear that the Mooldar is also a type of tenant that has been defined under Karnataka Rent Act. In the eviction petition by the tenant that he is protected under the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 cannot be countenanced in law, in view of the principles enumerated in the judgment of the Apex Court and also the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In the eviction petition by the tenant that he is protected under the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 cannot be countenanced in law, in view of the principles enumerated in the judgment of the Apex Court and also the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court with regard to invoking of Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and passing the order invoking the said provision. 20. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in PATRIC JOHN (SINCE DECEASED) BY L.Rs. VS. SOMASHEKHAR reported in 2009 SCC ONLINE KAR 79, wherein also discussion was made with regard to Section 3(n) and 5 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and discussed with regard to the restrictions on the rights of legal representatives of tenant under Section 5 , wherein it is held that provisions of Section 5 is applicable even to a tenant who had died during the pendency of proceedings initiated under the old Act and prior to coming into force of the 1999 Act. Further it is also held that legal representatives of such tenant will have the right to inherit only in terms of Section 5 , even though they were brought on record prior to commencement of the 1999 Act and such legal representatives will remain as legal representatives only for the purpose of Section 5 and will not get the status of rent. Learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that only for a period of five years as enumerated under Section 5 confers the right to continue and not more than that. Learned counsel would contend that in the case on hand also, the respondents are legal representatives of original tenant and contend that Section 5 attracts and no other proviso. 21. In reply to this argument of learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that citations referred above and Section 5 is subject to the contract and Section 5 not overrides the explicit contract. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that in both the judgments of the Trial Court and Rent Revision Court, not discussed the proviso of the Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulgeni or Volamulgeni Tenants Act, 2011 , since there is a bar under Section 10. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that in both the judgments of the Trial Court and Rent Revision Court, not discussed the proviso of the Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulgeni or Volamulgeni Tenants Act, 2011 , since there is a bar under Section 10. Hence, the impugned order of the Trial Court as well as the Rent Revision Court are liable to be set aside. 22. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the grounds which have been urged in both the petitions, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (1) Whether the petitioners in H.R.R.P.No.5/2024 have made out the grounds to set aside the order passed in Rev. (Rent) No.14/2021 allowing the petition in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the petition under Section 27 (2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ? (2) Whether the Rent Revision Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court erred in acting outside its jurisdiction allowing to make valuation and make payment for eviction by answering the same as ‘affirmative’ and that Trial Court ought not to have exercised such powers and it requires interference of this Court in H.R.R.P.No.5/2024? (3) Whether the petitioners in H.R.R.P.No.6/2024 have made out the grounds to set aside the order of dismissal passed in Rev. (Rent) No.10/2021 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court granting the relief under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and it requires interference of this Court? (4) What order? POINT No.1: 23. Having heard the counsel in H.R.R.P.No.5/2024 wherein specific contention was made that Rent Revision Court committed an error in allowing the petition filed under 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . It is contended in the Revision Petition that very approach made by the Rent Revision Court that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the petition under 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) is erroneous and ought not to have allowed the petition in respect of 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . Having taken note of the said contention and also it is not in dispute that petition is filed under 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . Having taken note of the said contention and also it is not in dispute that petition is filed under 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . The Trial Court having considered the ground sought for eviction for personal use and occupation of the original tenant considered the same and while answering the said point for consideration in respect of point No.2 framed for consideration whether the petitioners prove that she being a widow, requires the petition premises for bonafide use and occupation while seeking the relief invoking 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of Karnataka Rent Act comes to the conclusion that the original petitioners sought that the petition premises is required for bonafide occupation and use will not arise for consideration on account of death during the pendency of the case. When such finding is given Rent Revision Court fails to take note of the said fact into consideration and no any other averment made in the petition that any other family members are required to petition schedule premises and proviso under Section 27 (2) is very clear with regard to if the premises required for bonafide use of herself as well as any family members, then Court can examine the same and consider the same, but on account of death of the original petitioner, she has claimed that petition schedule premises is required for her bonafide use and occupation. In the absence of any other amendment or pleading, question of granting the relief under Section 27 (2)(r) and 31(1)(a) does not arise. The Rent Revision Court fails to take note of the said fact into consideration and nothing is discussed in the judgment regarding 27(2)(r) is concerned. Hence, committed an error in allowing the petition filed under 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 also. Hence, I answered the point No.1 as affirmative. POINT NO.2: 24. Having considered the grounds urged by the revision petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and having framed the point for consideration, the question before this Court is whether Rent Revision Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court erred in acting outside its jurisdiction allowing to make valuation and make payment for eviction by answering the same as affirmative and the Trial Court ought not to have exercise such powers and the said findings requires interference of this Court. 25. 25. Having perused the order of the Trial Court, no doubt while allowing the petition under Section 5 of the H.R.C Act, a direction was given to parties to the petitioner shall ascertain the value of improvements made in the petition property by four gentleman within 2 months from the date of the order. On receipt of valuation of improvements made in the petition property, petitioner Nos.1(a) and 1(b) shall deduct the arrears of rent payable by the respondents and pay the balance value of improvements to the respondent and further direction was given that respondents on receipt of value of the improvements, shall hand over the vacant possession of the petition property along with improvement within one month from the date of amount. No doubt having considered the Ex.P.8 there is a clause, in case of any forfeiture of the lease there is a recital to consider the improvement and the same has been extracted in paragraph No.23 of the Trial Court. Having perused the covenant only observes that it is clear that petition was filed under Section 5 of Rent Act as the Mulageni binds the legal representatives of parties to the Ex.P.8 and also even discussed the provision under Section 5 of Rent Act. Having discussed Section 5 also fails to take note of the proviso under Section 5 of the Rent Act, but relies upon Ex.P.8 that it makes it clear that respondent did not pay the Mulageni for a continuous period of 5 years, the Mulageni stands forfeited. 26. It is also important to note that possession of the petition property along with improvements, cost of improvements shall be estimated by the four gentleman and pay the improvement cost after deducting the arrears of rents to the Mulagenidar. No doubt there is a covenant in the said document, but the fact is that when four gentleman examines and estimate the improvement cost and again there would be a dispute with regard to making of estimation regarding improvement and the same cannot be decided. Hence, the very order passed by the Trial Court allowing the petition under Section 5 would be defeated giving such direction. The Rent Revision Court rightly comes to the conclusion that it can be done in a separate proceedings and not in the petition filed under Section 5 of Rent Act. Hence, the very order passed by the Trial Court allowing the petition under Section 5 would be defeated giving such direction. The Rent Revision Court rightly comes to the conclusion that it can be done in a separate proceedings and not in the petition filed under Section 5 of Rent Act. No doubt, there is a recital in Ex.P.8 covenant for improvement and the same cannot be done in view of the specific provision under Section 5 of the Act that tenant is entitled for protection under Section 5 and the same is only for a period of 5 years in view of the subsequent enactment of 1999 and the Court has to take note of the very object and intention and wisdom of the legislature while incorporating Section 5 of Rent Act since the Trial Court has allowed the petition under Section 5 of Rent Act and ascertaining the value of improvement made in the petition property as stipulated in Ex.P.8 that could be considered in a separate proceedings and if that report and estimation is disputed, there will be no end and also further direction that on the receipt of the valuation of improvement made in the petition property, petitioner shall deduct the arrears and pay the balance value of improvement again the same is a disputed question of fact and though direction was given that respondent on receipt of value of improvement shall hand over the vacant possession of petition property along with improvement within one month from the date of receipt of amount, but if that report is disputed, again the provision under Section 5 of Rent Act will become futile. Hence, Rent Revision Court comes to the conclusion that the same cannot be done and the same can be done only in a separate proceedings. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in reversing the finding in allowing the revision petition. POINT No.3: 27. The revision petitioner’s counsel would vehemently contend that in H.R.R.P.No.6/2024 both the Courts have committed an error in invoking Section 5 of Rent Act and Rev.(Rent).Nos.10/2021 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. The main grievance of counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that there is no dispute that there is a registered lease agreement dated 27.07.1961 in terms of Ex.P.8. The main grievance of counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that there is no dispute that there is a registered lease agreement dated 27.07.1961 in terms of Ex.P.8. It is also important to note that during the life time of original tenant no such any case is filed against him, but petition is filed invoking under Section 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) and also Section 5 of H.R.C Act. It is also important to note that the original tenant died in the year 2008 and also it is the specific case of the original land owner that rent for a period of 5 years has not been paid. It is also not in dispute that notice was issued forfeiting the lease since there is a proviso in the lease itself that in case rent has not been paid for a period of 5 years, the lease will be forfeited. The fact that notice was issued and lease was forfeited is not in dispute, but no doubt a reply was given along with arrears of rent and the same has not been accepted. 28. It is also important to note that the Court has to take note of the very clause in Ex.P.8 and specific recital is made in case of default for a period of 5 years, tenancy would be forfeited and accordingly tenancy was forfeited by causing legal notice. It is also important to note that having issued such notice of forfeiture of the waited for a period of 5 years and petition is filed in the year 2013 and since the original tenant died on 13.02.2008 and after the expire of 5 years, allowing the tenants who are the legal heirs of original tenant filed the petition. It is also observed by both the Courts that there is no any covenant in the Ex.P.8 for renewal of the lease on payment of arrears of rent. No doubt counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contend that petition is not filed under Section 27(2)(a) regarding arrears of rent. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Court has to determine arrears of rent and direction may be given and no such occasion arises in the case on hand as soon as notice was issued, the very tenant sent the arrears of rent along with D.D and the same is not accepted. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Court has to determine arrears of rent and direction may be given and no such occasion arises in the case on hand as soon as notice was issued, the very tenant sent the arrears of rent along with D.D and the same is not accepted. When such being the case and when the petition is not filed under Section 27(2)(a), question of giving any time to the tenant to make the payment of rent and continue the proceedings does not arise when the petition is not filed under Section 27(2)(a) of the Act. 29. The other contention of the counsel that it is a perpetual lease and the same is a contract and hence, cannot be evicted and also counsel would contend that Rent Act cannot be invoked and Ex.P.8 lease deed is very clear regarding it is a perpetual lease. On the other hand the contention that when the rent has agreed, not been paid for a period of 5 years and even if it is a perpetual lease and the same is forfeited in terms of Ex.P.8. It is not in dispute that there is a clause in Ex.P.8 that forfeiture would be made in case of default of payment of rent for a period of 5 years. It is also not in dispute that in terms of the registered lease agreement, rent is payable Rs.30/- per annum. When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel that tenancy is a fixed term of contractual lease cannot be accepted and the same has been terminated in terms of clause in Ex.P.8. 30. It is also not in dispute that in terms of the registered lease agreement, rent is payable Rs.30/- per annum. When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel that tenancy is a fixed term of contractual lease cannot be accepted and the same has been terminated in terms of clause in Ex.P.8. 30. No doubt counsel appearing for the revision petition relied upon the judgment reported in (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 409 in case of Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar and another V/s Rudravva (Smt) and others and the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the said petition was filed under Section 21 of Karnataka Rent Control Act wherein also held that it can be initiated only on any of the grounds mentioned in clause (a) to (p) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 and only when the lease deed such ground is also provided as one of the ground for forfeiture of the lease and held that Rent Acts have primarily been made to protect the tenants and also discussed that it is a provision providing statutory protection to the tenants and proviso limits the grounds on which a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant. The non obstante clause contained under Section 21, will override any condition in any contract which may provide a ground for eviction other than those enumerated in clauses (a) to (p) of sub-section (1). It has to be noted that the old act was repealed by bringing a new enactment of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 . 31. It is also important to note that while repealing the old act Section 70 is also introduced which says that Karnataka Rent Control Act is hereby repealed and also sub-clause 2 says that not withstanding such repeal and subject to the provisions of Section 69. Hence, Section 70 of the Act has got 3 parts, Section 70(2)(a), (b) and (c). The cases of proceedings coming within the provisions of Section 70, 70(2)(a), they will continue under the repealed act and the provisions of the act are not made applicable and to this extent the act can be held to be prospective and also detailed discussion was made that two things emerges from this provision of sub section (2) clause (b) of Section 70. The proceedings and cases have to be continued and disposed of under the act must be in accordance with provisions of the act itself, that means the provisions of the act would govern all such proceeding pending, for which the provisions of the act are applicable. 32. It is also very important to note that Court has to take note of Section 3(n) of Karnataka Rent Act definition of tenant for the purpose of the Act which reads as follows: Section 3(n): “Tentant” means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises, is or but for a special contract would be, payable, and includes; i) a sub-tenant; ii) any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy, but does not include any person to whom a licence as defined in Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Central At 5 of 1882) has been granted; iii) a deserted wife of a tenant who has been or is entitled to be in occupation of the matrimonial home or tenanted premises of husband; and iv) a divorced wife of a tenant who has a decree of divorce in which the right of residence in the matrimonial home or tenanted premises has been incorporated as one of the conditions of the decree of divorce; 33. Having read Section 70 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and also having read Section 3(n) it is very clear that rent of any premises is or but for a special contract would be, payable, and includes a sub tenant, any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy, but does not include any person to whom a licence as defined in Section 5 2 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Central At 5 of 1882) has been granted. Having read Section 3(n) as well as Section 70, the old act was repealed and certain provisions were also made for continuation of the proceedings and also tenancy is defined under Section 3(n) of the new enactment Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 , the definition of tenant, it includes the special contract. In the case on hand also, it is a case of Mulageni. In the case on hand also, it is a case of Mulageni. It is also important to note that as on the date of entering into a lease agreement under registered document in terms of Ex.P.8, the Rent Act, 1999 was not in existence, but new enactment of Rent Act came into existence in view of introducing the new enactment and repealing the old Rent Control Act and specific provision is made under Section 5 of the new Act. This Court would like to extract Section 5 of the Rent Act which reads as follows: “Section 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 up to 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 his 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. ” 34. ” 34. When this Court having considered the judgment contended by the revision petitioner’s counsel that in the said judgment not discussed about Section 5 of new enactment of Rent Act, 1999. This Court has to take note of the principles laid down in the judgment of division bench reported in (2009) 5 KLJ 345 in case of Patric John (Since deceased) by L.Rs V/s Somashekhar wherein this Court discussed Section 70(2)(a) regarding whether the same is retrospective or prospective and held it is a prospective in limited sense i.e., only the cases and proceedings coming within the provisions of Section 70(2)(a) of the 1999 Act will continue under the repealed Act and provisions of 1999 Act to such proceedings will not apply. It is also made it clear that under sub clause 2(b) of Section 70 applicability of the Act also discussed pending proceedings under the old Act held that all proceedings though initiated prior to the coming into the force of the 1999 Act, which are continued under this Act, had to be proceeded in terms of the provisions of 1999 Act itself. Hence, all the provisions of the 1999 Act would be applicable as if the said proceedings are initiated under the provisions of the 1999 Act. 35. In this judgment also discussed with regard to Section 3 and Section 5 of Rent Act, 1999. It is important to note that restrictions on the rights of legal representatives (LRs’) under Section 5 and also discussed applicability held that provisions of Section 5 is applicable even to a tenant who had died during the pendency of proceedings initiated under the old Act and prior to coming into force of the 1999 Act. Further held that legal representatives of such tenant will have the right to inherit only in terms of the Section 5 even though they were brought on record prior to commencement of 1999 Act, such legal representatives will remain as legal representatives only for the purpose of Section 5 and will not get the status of tenant. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment it is very clear that the right of inheritance is given for a period of 5 years only. 36. It is the contention of the revision petitioner’s counsel that earlier document of lease deed confers the right as a statutory tenant and the said contention cannot be accepted. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment it is very clear that the right of inheritance is given for a period of 5 years only. 36. It is the contention of the revision petitioner’s counsel that earlier document of lease deed confers the right as a statutory tenant and the said contention cannot be accepted. It is very clear that tenancy is a right of inheritance as original tenant is no more. In the very judgment in paragraph No.13 referred supra discussed in this regard, they also relied upon the provisions of Section 3(n) of the Act, the definition of tenant, Section 3(n) of the Act does not includes spouse, children whether defendant or not. This makes it clear legislature had not intended to extend the tenancy rights to the successors of tenant and such tenancy rights get extinguished the moment tenant dies. If the tenant dies during the pendency of the proceedings, his legal representatives would come on record only to derive the benefit of Section 5 of the Act and not for any other reason and this Court would like to extract the very paragraph No.13 of the judgment. “ In this regard, they also relied on the provisions of Section 3, clause (n) of the Act, the definition of ‘tenant’. Section 3, clause (n) does not include spouse, children, whether dependent or not. This makes it clear that, Legislature had not intended to extend the tenancy rights to the successors of tenant and such tenancy rights get extinguished the moment tenant, dies. If the tenant dies during the pendency of the proceedings, his legal representative would come on record only to derive the benefit under Section 5 of the Act and not for any other reason. “ 37. This Court also would like to rely upon judgment of this Court Manu/KA/0673/2004 in the case of Jaya Andrews V/s Yusuf wherein it has been held that legal representatives of the original tenant can be continue for a period of 5 years from the death of original tenant and then quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises. The said dictum indicates that maximum period of tenancy that can be inherited is 5 years and that cannot be read as minimum period. The said dictum indicates that maximum period of tenancy that can be inherited is 5 years and that cannot be read as minimum period. It is also important to note that the very Section 5 of Rent Act was also discussed in this judgment that inheritance of tenancy and death of tenant and right of tenancy devolves on his legal representatives only for a period of 5 years and Section 5 is also very clear that in the event of death of the tenant, the right of tenancy would devolve upon legal representatives only for a period of 5 years and also to be taken note of in the context of Section 31(1)(a), what legislature intends by this provisions is to restrict the heritability of tenancy depending upon the circumstances under which the said tenancy is claimed. The maximum that could be claimed is for a period of 5 years. It has nothing to do with the Court power to pass an eviction order against the legal representatives of deceased tenant during the said period of 5 years. If the original tenant could be evicted from the premises on the land lord making out a case for eviction, under Section 5 for any other provisions of Rent Act, a similar eviction could be passed against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. 38. This Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 6 KLJ 621 in a case of P.M.Nagajyothi V/s V.M.Ramasanjeevasheety and others wherein also discussion was made in respect of 3(n) and Section 5 wherein held that inherited tenancy of husband whether successor inherited tenancy under Section 5 of the Act, whether such tenant liable to be evicted within a period of 5 years of inheritance held that according to Section 5, right of tenancy would devolve on certain categories of successors of deceased tenant and certain conditions have to be complied with by the successors and also it is held that Section 3(n) of the Act is exhaustive in respect categories of persons who pay the rent, person who has a successor has inherited tenancy would also to be included within the definition. A successor who has inherited tenancy is a statutory tenant under Section 3(n) since the definition of tenant is not exhaustive. A successor who has inherited tenancy is a statutory tenant under Section 3(n) since the definition of tenant is not exhaustive. Hence, a successor of tenant who inherited tenancy under Section 5 is a tenant under Section 3(n) and tenant under Section 27(1)(n) of the Act would then include inherited tenant under Section 5. When Section harmonizing with Section 3(n) is read with Section 27 would mean that an inherited tenancy under Section 5 is liable to be evicted within a period of 5 years if landlord make out a case for eviction and tenant has to vacate the premises. 39. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment decided on 19.12.2023 in a case of Vinod and Others V/s Mudakappa and Others in connected matter reported in MANU/KA/3694/2023 wherein also discussion was made when the original tenant died after coming into force of act Section 5 of Act is applicable and death of tenant and right of tenancy shall devolve for a period of 5 years from the date of his death on said count. 40. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment passed in H.R.R.P.No.706/1999 decided on 24.02.2003 in case of Shahwar Basheer and others V/s Veena Mohan and Others also discussed that revisions have to be disposed of only with reference to the Section 5 of the Act wherein held that it would be open for the landlord to stay claim under Section 5 and obtain the possession of the premises in the occupation of successors of the tenant after the expire of the term permitted under Section 5 as it is a new substantive remedy provided for the enforcement of an existing right. It is also held that because of the provision of the present Act, especially Section 5 were not in existence at the time of the orders were passed and more still as there is no consideration of material on record with reference to the altered law that governs the field, now, this Court sitting in revision can adjudicate the matter in terms of the alter law as subsequent developments and altered circumstances are relevant at all stages of proceedings. It is also observed in this judgment that the right that accrues to the successors under Section 5 is not an absolute right in that the right to continue in possession during the subsistence of the inheritance of tenancy is always subjected to the rights of the land lord seeks for their eviction. If it requires for the same or if a right accrues to him for such eviction from the acts of commission or omission of the successors in violation of legal obligation of the contract of tenancy. 41. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment reported in (2009) 3 KarLJ 386 in case of B.K.Suresh Babu and Ors V/s ANanthalakshmi and Ors wherein Section 5 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 was also discussed and held that Section 5 of Act says rights of legal representatives as tenant extinguished after five years from date of death of original tenant and ratio decided in this case is that as per Section 5 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 , in absence of independent right to occupy tenancy rights of legal representative stood extinguished after five years from death of original tenant and this judgment in paragraph No.9 held that Section 5 is prospect in operation, in that, the right of a legal representative of a tenant to claim protection under Section 3(n) read with Section 21 of the 1961 Act is taken away prospectively with coming into force of 1999 Act, which recognizes only a limited right in such legal representatives. Section 5 is not applied retrospectively as a requisite for an action in terms of Section 5 is an event that has occurred before coming into force of new Act. The right of legal representative of a tenant who claims his right to occupation only as a successor of a tenant, but not under an independent right would have to be addressed in terms of Section 5 which contemplates that the tenancy would stand determined with the death of the tenant subject to Section 5 . 42. The right of legal representative of a tenant who claims his right to occupation only as a successor of a tenant, but not under an independent right would have to be addressed in terms of Section 5 which contemplates that the tenancy would stand determined with the death of the tenant subject to Section 5 . 42. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra and also the judgment relied upon by the counsel appearing for the respondent in a similar set of facts in the judgment of this Court dated 05.09.2024 passed in H.R.R.P.No.28/2024 wherein also in a case of issue of Mulageni was considered and so also discussed in paragraph No.25 the issue of whether rent Act is applicable or not and also the issue of if it is a registered deed which protects the right of tenant and the same is also considered and even though the judgment of LAXMIDAS BAPUDAS DARBAR AND ANOTHER VS. RUDRAVYA (SMT) AND OTHERS referred by the counsel for the revision petitioner was also taken and co-ordinate bench of this Court in M/s Bombay Tyres International Ltd., V/s K.S.Prakash reported in AIR 1997 Kant 311 also discussed and in the judgment of LAXMIDAS BAPUDAS DARBAR case Supreme Court held that eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act can be initiated before the expire of during the currency of the lease period and only on any of the grounds mentioned in 21(a) to (b) of Rent Control Act and only when such ground is also provided in the lease deed as one of the ground for forfeiture of lease, referring those two judgments, comes to the conclusion that Supreme Court as well as co-ordinate bench held that the Muldar is also a type of tenant that has been defined under Karnataka Rent Act and hence, held that the very contention that tenant is protected under the Karnataka Rent Act cannot be countenanced in law. This Court also discussed in paragraph No.45 discussed extracting Section 5 of Rent Act regarding inheritability of tenancy and in paragraph No.47 comes to the conclusion that it is crystal clear that if original tenant dies persons who are entitled to remain in the property as a persons who are directly dependent on the original tenant over a period of 5 years. 43. 43. Having considered all these principles laid down in the judgment referred supra, it is very clear that under the circumstances landlord is also entitled to eviction of the respondent from the petition premises by resorting to Section 5 of the Rent Act, 1999. In the case on hand also no doubt there was a lease for period of 99 years that is in favour of the original tenant and subsequently he passed away and also in terms of Ex.P.8 it is very clear that lease can be forfeited in case of default in non-payment of rent for a period of 5 years and hence, lease also forfeited. It is also important to note that after the death of original tenant, a notice was given and forfeited the tenancy on the ground of non-payment of rent and also they waited for a period of 5 years to file the petition since there was a provision under Section 5 of Rent Act, the right of inheritance of tenancy for a period of 5 years and also proviso is very clear that only for a period of 5 years they are entitled and in view of specific provision is made under the Rent Act, the very contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that cannot invoke Section 5 and it is a perpetual tenancy and also the revision petitioner is statutory tenant cannot be accepted and special provision is made under Section 5 of Rent Act to evict the tenant who are the legal heirs of original tenant. Hence, the contention of revision petitioner cannot be accepted that the Trial Court and Revision Court committed an error in invoking Section 5 and the dismissal of Rev. (Rent) Nos.10/2021 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court is erroneous cannot be accepted. Hence, I answer the same as negative. POINT No.4: 44. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition H.R.R.P.No.5/2024 is allowed in part and granting the relief under Section 27 (2)(r) and Section 31 (1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is hereby set-aside only. ii) The order passed in H.R.R.P.No.5/2024 and H.R.R.P.No.6/2024 are confirmed invoking Section 5 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and consequently the revision petitioner is given 2 months time to vacate and hand over the premises to the respondent.