( 1 ) THIS regular second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-1989 passed by the Principal District Judge, Kolar in R. A. No. 3/ 1984 confirming the decree dated 30-11-1983 passed in O. S. No. 54/ 81 by the learned Civil Judge, K. G. F.

( 2 ) THIS appeal has been REFERRED TO a Division Bench having regard to a conflict between the several decisions of this court regarding the jurisdiction of a civil court to pass a decree for possession against the tenant of a premise to which the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the 'act'), are applicable.

( 3 ) THE premises in question are residential houses situated in Robertsonpet, K. G. F. The details of the premises are set out in the schedule to the plaint. We do not consider it necessary to repeat the same. It is sufficient to state that the provisions of the Act apply to Robertsonpet, K. G. F. wherein the premises in question are situated.

( 4 ) THE appellant was the 1st defendant in the suit. Respondent-2 was the plaintiff and respondents 1 and 3 were defendants 3 and 2 respectively.

( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent purchased the suit schedule premises from the previous owner Sri A. Doreswamy Naidu under a registered sale deed dated 14-4-1979. After the purchase, the plaintiff filed H. R. C. No. 50/ 1979 for possession against the defendants but they denied her title and set up title in themselves. Therefore, the plaintiff treated the tenancy as forfeited and filed O. S. No. 54/ 1981 for a declaration of her title to the suit properties described in plaint schedules-B, C and D and for possession of the same. She specifically averred in the plaint that the defendants were the tenants of the premises; that she had filed H. R. C. No. 50/ 1979 against the defendants wherein they denied her title, therefore, their tenancy stood terminated by forfeiture and hence she pleaded that she had filed the suit for a declaration of title and for possession of the suit schedule premises.

( 6 ) THE defendants also contended that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit schedule premises and that they were not the tenants of the schedule premises. They claimed possession of, and title to, the premises on the basis of agreements of sale alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title, in their favour.

( 7 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court raised the following issues :"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased from A. Doreswamy Naidu under a registered sale deed dated 14-4-1979? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in occupation of the house and vacant site except the portions occupied by the defendants shown in B, C and D Schedules to the plaint? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant is in occupation of B' Schedule, D. 2 is in occupation C' Schedule and D. 3 is in occupation of the D' Schedule to the fullest extent? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that A. Doraiswamy Naidu, the original owner after the sale, attorned the tenancy of the defendants in her favour? 5. Whether the plaintiff proves that there is forfeiture of the tenancy as the defendants have denied the title and the defendants are trespassers liable to be evicted from the properties in their possession and also liable to pay damages for use and occupation? 6. Whether the plaintiff proves that D. 1 is liable to pay Rs. 155/- at the rate of Rs. 5/- p. m. D. 2 is liable to pay Rs. 124/- at the rate of Rs. 4/- p. m. and D. 3 is liable to pay Rs. 279/- at the rate of Rs. 2/- p. m. from 14-4-79 to 12-10-81? 7. Whether the defendants prove that at the intervention of one G. Balu and A. Subramanyaswamy's it was settled that the plaintiff and other tenants including the defendants have to purchase their respective tenements for a sum of Rs. 4000/- and Rs. 2000/- respectively and each of the tenant including the plaintiff, paid Rs. 1