The Rent Controller's jurisdiction and powers are limited, and the distinction between the Controller and the Court is maintained under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

( 1 ) THIS House Rent Revision Petition has been filed under section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 challenging the judgment and order dated 19-9-1995 passed by the House rent and Accommodation Controller, South Range, Bangalore, rejecting the petitioners-applicants' application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a proceedings under section 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as Act 32 of 1961) for fixation of fair rent. The petitioners-applicants moved an application to the effect that under the orders of this Court in Revision Nos. 389 and 613 of 1994, the tenants had to make deposits of the rents but the tenant has committed default and he has not deposited the rent and he was in arrears for a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- The applicants prayed that the tenant be directed to deposit the said rent at the admitted rent of Rs. 15,000/- p. m. In case of non-compliance of direction to pay a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-, the application under section 14 of the Rent Control Act moved by the tenant-opposite party be dismissed. The Rent and Accommodation Controller, south Range, Bangalore, dismissed therefore the said application of revisional applicant observing that the proceedings could be initiated under Section 29 of the Rent control Act. Section 29 of the Rent Control Act would be applicable to the civil Court and it is the jurisdiction of the Civil court to issue such a direction and the Controller has no such jurisdiction to issue direction. The Rent Controller having rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to issue any such direction as prayed and there is no ground to dismiss the application for fixation of rent on that basis as well. That feeling aggrieved from this order dated 19-9-1995, the landlord who were respondents in the accommodation Controller, preferred this petition under Section 50 of the Act.

( 2 ) IHAVE heard Sri R. B. Sadashivappa, Counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashok B. Patil, Counsel for applicant and applied my mind to their respective contentions. 2-A. Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act confers revisional power on the High Court and those powers are very clear as circumscribed by the conditions mentioned therein. Section 50 (1) reads as follows :"the High Court may at any time call for and examine any order passed or proceeding taken by (the Court of small Causes or the Court of Civil Judge) under this Act or any order passed by the Controller under Sections 14, 15, 16 or 17 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit". Sub-section (2) is not relevant. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 reveals that revisional power is conferred on the High Court. This authority under the section is available and exercisable in case the following conditions are satisfied. Firstly that the order impugned is one which has been passed by the Small Cause court Act under the provisions of this Act or that the order impugned is one passed by the Controller and said order has been passed by the Controller under Sections 14, 15, 16 or 17 of the Act. So the first condition that the applicant has to prove if the order is one passed by the Controller under anyone of these sections and the second condition to be fulfilled by the applicant who files a revision in this Court is that he must show to the satisfaction of the Court that the order which is alleged to have been passed under Sections 14, 15, 16 or 17 of the Act suffers from illegality or of substantial incorrectness. The order, in the present case according to the case of the applicants, has been passed on an application which has been moved under Section 151, CPC, rejecting that application on the ground that there is no jurisdiction to entertain and allow or to issue any such direction as prayed for. Even on the lenient view that it is an order passed