SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the concurrent findings of the courts-below rejecting the petition filed under Section 21 (1} (a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Old Act' for short) on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-landlord filed the eviction petition alleging that a plot measuring 55' east-west and 225' north-south along with some other properties fell to her share and she was put in possession of the same. The petitioner put forth a case that the respondent-tenant is staying on a portion measuring 20' north south and 20' east west in the plot which fell to her share in the partition. Claiming that the respondent failed to pay the rents the petitioner filed the petition for eviction of the tenant under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Old Act. The Courts-below dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent orders of the Courts-below the present revision is filed by the petitioner.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides in this revision.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the revision in this Court, the old Acth as come to be replaced by The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the act' for short) which in its wake has brought about substantial changes in the matter of regulation of eviction. One such provision is Section 43 which governs the manner in which the Court has to act when a dispute is raised before it as to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides and on perusal of both the orders, I find no reason to differ with the courts below on the finding of fact recorded by "them on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant. Having come to the conclusion I could have simply dismissed the revision petition but I am required in the light of Section 43 of the Act to advert to a procedural aspect that arises for my consideration. In order to better understand the manner in which this Court sitting in revision has to proceed in a matter like this, I quote the said Section 43 of. the 1999 Rent Act. The said section reads: 43. Dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant.- (1) Where in any proceeding before the Court a contention is raised denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties it shall be lawful for the Court to accept the document of lease or where there is no document of lease, a receipt of acknowledgment of payment of rent purported to be signed by the landlord as prima-facie evidence of relationship and proceed to hear the case. (2) Where (a) the lease pleaded is oral and either party denies relationship, and no receipt or acknowledgment of payment of rent as referred to in sub-section (1) above is produced, or (b) in the opinion of the Court there is reason to suspect the genuine existence of the document of lease or the receipt or acknowledgment of payment of rent, the Court shall at once stop all further proceedings before it - and direct the parties to approach a competent Court of Civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights. " (Underlining is mine) the Courts dealing with cases arising under the Karnataka Rent act, 1999 have been required frequently to consider the effect of legislative change in the law upon proceedings instituted before the change was made. Section 43 is a new substantive provision which has been brought into the statute book for the first time as there was no corresponding provision in the 1961 Rent Act. The 1999 Rent Act does not contain any special rule for interpretation of the provision contained in the 1999 Rent Act except that the pending proceedings are required to be considered under the new act in terms of Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 70 with the result the Court has to settle for the general rule of construction ordinarily acted upon. The provision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document