CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Rama jois, J. , as he doubted the correctness of the view taken by Malimath, J. , in Ex. S. A. No. 43 of 1977 regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of the civil Judge to execute a decree for eviction transferred to that Court by the Court of the Munsiff which had passed that decree.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are briefly these: The Petitioners herein had filed an application under S. 21 of the Karnataika Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of respondent 4 herein, the Co-operative Tourist and Transport Society Ltd. , in H. R. C. No. 723 of 1971 on the tile of the Addl. First Munsiff, Bangalore who granted a decree for eviction. Later the petitioners filed anexecution application, Ex. Case no. 623 of 1975, in the same Court. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Karnataka act No. 31 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment act) came into force. The Amendment Act amended the definition of the word 'court occuring in S. 3 (d) of the Act. The effect of such amendment is that the Court having jurisdiction for the purpose of the Act in the city of Bangalore is the Court of the Civil Judge, and not the court of the Munsiff. The Amendment Act also provided for transfer of proceedings under the Act pending in the Court of the Munsiff to the court of Civil Judges in thq City of Bangalore.

( 3 ) THE lerarned Munsiff before whom the execution proceedings were pending, seems to have taken the view that as a result of such amendment he ceased to have jurisdiction to execute the decree for eviction passed by him and that such decree could be executed only by the Court of the civil Judge. In that view hei transferred the execution petition filed by the present petitioners, to the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER the learned Civil Judge proceeded to execute the decree and issued a warrant for delivery of thq petition premises. Respondent-2 offered obstruction to the execution of that warrant. His objection was over-ruled by the learned Civil Judge, against whose order respondent-2 preferred an appeal, Ex. Appeal No. 19 of 1977, to the learned District Judge. As that appeal was dismissed, respondent-2 came up in revision in C. R. P. No. 127 of 1978. On 23. 3. 1978 this Court dismissed that revision petition observing:"sri. Albal, learned counsel for the petitioner, prayed that some reasonable time be granted for the petitioner to vacate the premises. He submitted that his client had automobiles of his customers stationed in the premises for repairs and that immediate eviction would seriously hamper his business and expose him to hardship. Having regard to circumstances stated by Sri Albal, I grant time till 31st of May 1978 to the petitioner to surrender and yield up possession of the premises, which if he fails to do respondents would be at liberty to obtain possession by the process of the executing court. Subject as aforesaid, this petition is rejected at the admission stage. "a petition filed by present rejspondent-2 for review of the aforesaid order was subsequently withdrawn by him and the review petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

( 5 ) AS respondent-2 did not vacate the petition premises, the petitioners moved the learned Civil Judge to issue the necessary process for putting them in possession of the petition premises. At that stage respondent-2 filed I. A. No. 22 wherein he raised, interalia, an objection that the Court of the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to execute the decree and it was only the Court of the Munsiff which had jurisdiction to do so. That objection found favour with the learned Civil Judge who held that in view of the ruling of this Court in (B. ML. N. Raju v. N. T. Neeiakantiah, Ex. S. A. 43/77 he had no jurisdiction to execute that decre,a He dismissed the execution petition leaving it open to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document