Judgment :

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal the judgment and order dated 12.11.2007 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in revisional jurisdiction in H.R.R.P. No. 60 of 2007, under Section 46 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 has been impugned.

3. The revisional petition was filed by Mrs. Zakiya Begum and two others assailing the order dated 18.1.2007, passed by the Learned XVth Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore on I.A. No. 8/2006 filed by the tenants, respondents herein.

4. The material facts are that the appellants are the landlords of the property bearing No. 28/1, Robertson Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore -5, measuring 43 feet North, South 37 feet 9 inches, East 25 feet and West 25 feet, the property included 6 feet wide passage leaving from Robertson Road into the scheduled premises (herein after referred to as the said `premises'). The appellants became the owner of the scheduled premises by virtue of a Gift Deed dated 30.3.2000 executed by the husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellants No. 2 and 3.

5. The appellants inducted the respondents as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.4000/-(Four Thousand Only) per month in respect of the said premises. The rent was agreed in accordance with clause 4 of the rent agreement dated 06.11.1997.

6. On or about 21.3.01 the appellants instituted an eviction proceeding being H.R.C. No. 10042/2001 against the respondents under Section 21 (1) (h) and (f) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (herein after "the 1961 Act"), inter alia, on the grounds of default, subletting, reasonable and bonafide requirements and some other grounds.

7. In the said eviction proceeding, the respondents filed an IA being, IA 8 of 2006, wherein it was contended by the respondents that during the pendency of the eviction proceeding, under Section 21(h)(f) of the 1961 Act, Karnataka Rent Act 1999 (herein after, "1999 Rent Act") has come into effect repealing the 1961 Act and it was further contended that the eviction proceeding will have to be dealt with under the provisions of the 1999 Rent Act. The appellants also amended their eviction proceedings in accordance with the 1999 Rent Act and the respondents gave their objections to the same.

8. The main objection of the respondents in IA 8 is that admittedly they are tenants on a monthly rental of Rs.4000/- and as such the eviction proceeding is not maintainable in respect of the premises under the 1999 Rent Act as the same is not applicable to premises where the monthly rental exceeds Rs.3500/-. It was, therefore, urged that the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to try the said eviction proceeding as the 1999 Rent Act does not apply.

9. By an Order dated 18.01.2007 the Court of XVth Additional Small Causes Judge, inter alia, held that "since the monthly rent of scheduled premises exceeds Rs.3500/-, hence the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is not applicable and this Court has no jurisdiction to try the case and the petition is not maintainable before this court". Saying so, IA 8 was allowed by the XVth Additional Judge of the Small Causes Court.

10. That led the appellants to challenge the said order of the Small Causes Court before the High Court.

11. It may be noted that neither before the High Court nor before this Court the applicability of the 1999 Rent Act, which came into effect in November 2001, was questioned by the appellants. Rather acknowledging its applicability to the pending eviction proceeding the appellant amended the same in accordance with the 1999 Rent Act.

12. It is very clear from Section 70 of the 1999 Rent Act that unless proceedings initiated under the 1961 Act has reached the stage of execution of a decree, 1961 Act will have no application to other eviction proceedings which are pending, prior to the execution stage, on the date of coming into effect of the 1999 Rent Act.

13. The provisions of repeal and savings under Section 70 of the 1999 Rent Act, particularly provis