Karnataka High Court
Saptagiri Complex, Bangalore And Ors. vs Bhupathi Naidu on 7 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: ILR2002KAR1460, 2002(2)KARLJ159, 2002 AIR – KANT. H. C. R. 1005, 2002 AIHC 1904, (2002) 2 KANT LJ 159, (2002) 1 RENCR 625
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
ORDER
Manjula Chellur, J.
1. House Rent Revision Petition No. 1591 of 1996 is filed by the landlord, who lost some of the grounds of eviction i.e., under Section 21(1)(a), (h) and (p) of the Act. So far as House Rent Revision Petition No. 1546 of 1996 it is filed by the tenant against whom an eviction order is made by the Trial Court under Section 21(1)(j) of the Act.
2. These two revision petitions arise out of one and the same judgment and order.
3. During the pendency of these two revision petitions, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 i.e., Karnataka Act 34 of 2001 has come into force with effect from 31-12-2001.
4. A memo was filed by the Counsel for the landlord contending that in view of the repealing of the old Karnataka Rent Control Act one has to look into Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which is a savings clause in the new Act. He further laid stress on Section 70(2)(b) and (c) and also Section 2(3)(g) of the new Act.
5. Section 70(2)(a) reads as under:
“(a) All proceedings in execution of any decree or order passed under the repealed Act, and pending at the commencement of this Act, in any Court shall be continued and disposed of by such Court as if the said enactment had not been repealed”.
6. Section 70(2)(b) reads as under:
“All cases and proceedings other than those referred to in clause (a) pending at the commencement of this Act before the Controller, Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, Court, District Judge or the High Court or other authority, as the case may be in respect of the premises to which this Act applies shall be continued and disposed of by such Controller, Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, Court, District Judge or the High Court or other authority in accordance with the provisions of this Act”.
7. Section 70(2)(c) reads as under:
“All other cases and proceedings pending in respect of premises to which this Act does not apply shall as from the commencement of the Act stand abated”.
8. In view of this section one has to see whether the premises in question comes within the purview of the new Act. Section 2(3)(g) is also relevant, as the premises is admittedly a non-residential premises. It was also brought to my notice during the arguments, the suggestions made by the tenant to the landlord during the cross-examination of the landlord established that plinth area of each premises measures more than 14 square metres.
9. Section 2(3)(g) reads as under:
“Nothing contained in this act shall apply–
to any premises used for non-residential purpose but excluding premises having a plinth area of not exceeding fourteen square metres used for commercial purpose”.
10. It is very clear from Section 2(3)(g) that, the premises which is non-residential one and if its plinth area is more than 14 square metres, the Rent Act of 1999 is not applicable. The savings clause under Section 70(2)(b) connotes if the premises is governed by the present Act, the same has to be dealt with in accordance with the present Act. Therefore, each of the petition schedule premises being more than 14 square metres cannot be entertained under the new Act of 1999. In other words such premises would go out of the purview of the new Rent Act.
11. Sub-section (3) of Section 70 reads as under:
“Except as otherwise provided in Section 69 and in Sub-section (2) of this section, provisions of Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 (Karnataka Act III of 1899), shall so far as may be applicable in respect of repeal of the said enactment and Sections 8 and 24 of the said Act shall be applicable as if the said enactment had been repealed”.
This also makes it clear that General Clauses Act do not apply to these petitions.
12. As the matters have not reached finality, Section 70(2)(a) is not applicable. By virtue of Section 70(2)(b) read with Section 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act of 1999, the Act is not applicable to these matters. Then only Section 70(2)(c) is to be looked into. Reading of Section 70(2)(c) makes it clear that if the cases are not covered either under Sub-section (b) or Sub-section (c) of Section 70(2) of the Act, such cases and proceedings stand abated.
13. From the above discussion and reasoning, the above revision petitions stand abated. The landlord/revision petitioner is at liberty to pursue his action in proper forum.
14. Accordingly, the revision petitions are disposed of.
