JUDGMENT

R.C.LAHOTI, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE landlord-respondents initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant-appellants on the grounds available under clauses (f), (h) and (p) of sub-section (1) of section 21 of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Old Act, for short). The trial court directed eviction of the tenants on all the three grounds. In a revision preferred by the tenants, the learned additional district judge held the ground under clause (h) not available to the landlords. However, the order of eviction was sustained upholding availability of grounds under clauses (f) and (p). The tenants and the landlords both filed revision petitions before the High Court. By order dated 11.10.2000, the High Court disposed of both the revisions holding that subletting of tenancy premises by the tenants was made out and hence order for eviction was sustainable under clause (f). The High Court did not deem it necessary to enter into the question of bona fide requirement. On a prayer made on behalf of the tenants, they were allowed a period of one and a half years for vacating the premises which period was to expire on 11th April, 2002.

(3) WITH effect from 31.12.2001, the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter the New Act, for short) came into force. The suit premises are non-residential premises measuring 352 sq. ft. i.e. more than 14 sq. mts.. Section 2 of the New Act speaks of application of the Act. Sub-section (3) thereof provides that nothing contained in this Act shall apply, amongst others, to any premises used for non residential purpose but excluding premises having a plinth area of not exceeding fourteen square meters used for commercial purpose. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the plinth area of the suit premises exceeds 147 sq. mts. and the same are used for commercial purpose, and therefore, the New Act is not applicable to the premises.

(4) AS the tenants did not vacate the tenancy premises on or before 11.4.2002, the landlords filed execution proceedings after 11.4.2002. The tenants objected to the maintainability of the execution proceedings submitting that the Decree passed under the old Act in respect of the premises to which the provisions of the New Act are not applicable, has ceased to be executable with the repeal of the old Act. The objection was overruled by the executing court as also by the High Court. The aggrieved tenant-judgment debtors have preferred this appeal by special leave.

(5) TWO questions arise for consideration:-

1. What is the effect of repeal of the old Act section 70 of the New Act on such decrees as were passed under the old Act and are yet to be executed?; 2. What would be the effect of section 70 of the New Act on special leave petitions filed under Article 136 of the Constitution or on the appeals pursuant to the leave granted thereunder?

(6) SECTION 70 of the new Act and section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 provide as under :-

"70. Repeal and Savings. - (1) The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 32 of 1961) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal and subject to the provisions of section 69.- (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 off by such court as if the said enactment had not been repealed; (b) 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 off by such controller, deputy commissioner, divisional commissioner, court, district judge or the High Court or other authority in accordance with the pr