( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the third defendant against the decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga, in R. A. No. 95 of 1968, affirming the decree parsed by the Munsiff at Sedarn in OS. 28/1 of 1966.

( 2 ) THE first respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit on the 3rd of June, 1966 for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit house situate at sedarn, for possession and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10 per month from the 1st of April till realisation. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 1 and 2 were the original owners under whom the third defendant was a tenant. He purchased the suit property from defendants 1 and 2. But, defendant 3 forfeited his tenancy rights as he disclaimed the plaintiff's title and set up title in himself. The plaintiff has further averred that in these circumstances, the third defendant is in posseession as a trespasser. It is on the basis of these averments that the. plaintiff sought a decree for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits. The third defendant, who is the contesting defendant, set up title in himself and asserted that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. He denied the plaintiff's title. The Court of first instance made a decree in favour of the plaintiff, declaring his title and awarding possession and mesne profits, at the rate of Rs. 10 per month from the 1st of April, 1966. That decree having been affirmed on appeal by the learned Civil Judge, the third defendant has challenged the same in this second appeal.

( 3 ) SRI N. Santhosh Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the decree passed, for possession and mesne profits, by the Court below is contrary to law. It was contended that in view of the bar contained in sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act) no decree for possession could be passed in favour of the plaintiff and as against the third defendant. Such a contention was sought to be raised by the third defendant in the Court of first insance, but the Court of first instance did not permit the third defendant to raise such a contention. The first part of sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act in so far as it is material for the purpose of this case may be extracted as follows :"21 (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained, in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant : provided that the Court may on an application made to it, make an order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "the first part of sub-sec (1) of S. 21 contains an injunction against the courts or any other authority not to make a decree or order for possession in favour of the landlord and against the tenant for possession of any premises. It is not disputed that the Act applied to the suit premises which is situate at Sedam in the district of Gulbarga,. The second part of sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 which is in the nature of a proviso stages that the Court as defined in the Act may on an application made to it make an order for recovery of possession of a premises only on one or more of the grounds stated therein. This is not a case to which the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of s. 21 is attracted in as much as the proceeding qut of which this second appeal arises is not an application for recovery of possession of the premises made to the Court constituted under the Act on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act. Sq far as thei first part of sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 is concerned, the same has to be given effect to when the Court has to make a decree in favour of the lanlord and against the tenant in respect of any premises to which the Act applies. As already mentioned, the premises is situate at Sedam to wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document