Back
Karnataka High Court
TARA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
SAKKUBAI - Respondent
Decided On : 01-20-03
House Rent Revision Petition : 312 of 2001
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Section 115 -Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 -Section 21(1)(h)(i) -Revision Petition - Landlords have questioned the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Addl. Dist Judge, allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent -tenant against the orders of eviction passed by the Civil Judge and there by dismissing the eviction petition filed by the Petitioners/Landlords - Whether the statutory right of tenancy that accrued to the LRs of the deceased original tenant under the superseded enactment can be taken away as the repeal of a law is operative for future and it ought not to affect action already taken and the legal consequences of such action - the revision, a pending proceeding - Held, when a matter is pending in revision it is to be deemed as a pending proceeding - It would be no different in a matter pending under section 115 CPC because, the reference in Section 70 (2)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is to all cases and proceedings in respect of the premises to which the present Act applied.
[A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.] - It would be no different in a matter pending under Section 115 C.P.C in the court because the reference in Section 70(2) (b) is to all cases and proceedings in respect of the premises to which the present Act applies. The reference clearly is to the premises to which the Act applies and not to the proceedings under the Act . There can be no dispute in the present case that the present Act applies to the petition premises. If Section 5 is applied to the present proceedings, the inescapable conclusion is that the right of tenancy that had accrued to the legal representatives under the Old Act is limited by Section 5 to five years from the date of death of tenant. Section 5 has been given retrospective effect by operation of the statutory stipulation contained in Section 70(2) (b) of the present Act. Therefore, the petitioner in the revision has to succeed under Section 5 of the present Act.
Statutory rights of legal representatives
KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1961
Section 21(1)(h)(i) and Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, Section 70 - Revision Petition - Landlords have questioned the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Addl. Dist Judge, allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent -tenant against the orders of eviction passed by the Civil Judge and thereby dismissed the eviction petition filed by the Petitioners/Landlords -Whether the statutory right of tenancy that accrued to the LRs of the deceased original tenant under the superseded enactment can be taken away as the repeal of a law is operative in future and it ought not to affect action already taken and the legal consequences of such action -revision, a pending proceeding -held, when a matter is pending in revision it is to be deemed as a pending proceeding - it would be no different in a matter pending under section 115 CPC because the reference in Section 70 (2)(b) is to all cases and proceedings in respect of the premises to which the present Act applies - reference clearly is to the premises to which the Act applies and not to the proceeding under the Act - Section 5 has been given retrospective effect by operation of the statutory stipulation contained in Section 70 (2) (b) of the present Act - Revision succeed under section 5 of the present Act.
[A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.] - When Section 70(2)(b) mandates that all pending proceedings, which would include the revision also, shall be continued and disposed off in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the retrospective operation of Sec.3(n) and Sec.5 of the Act has to be inferred and a party affected cannot escape from this conclusion by merely harping on the fact that the Act has been given only prospective effect. Sec. 70(2) (b) of the Act stipulates that all cases and proceedings other than those referred to in clause (a) shall be continued and disposed off in accordance with the provisions of this Act . Therefore, the saving clause is only in respect of proceedings pending in execution of any decree or order passed under the repealed Act. Thus, all proceedings barring those which had already reached the stage of execution would have to be continued in accordance with the Act and not in accordance with the repealed Act. The Act while obliterating the Old Act from the statute books as completely as if it had never been passed barring for the proceedings in execution of any decree or order passed under the repealed Act and pending at the commencement of the Act, under clause (b) it has clearly expressed its intention to affect the right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Old Act by subjecting them to investigation under the provisions of the present Act, in all cases where the proceedings are pending. When a matter is pending in revision it is to be deemed as a pending proceeding as the cause does not change.
Cases Referred: Followed: SCR 1966 (3) 275; AIR 1977 Raj 180.
( 1 ) IN this revision filed under Section 115 of the CPC the petitioners landlords have questioned the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Chikmagalur in Revision Petition no. 10 of 1997 allowing the revision petition filed by the respondents-tenants against the orders of eviction passed by the learned Civil judge (Junior Division) in H. R. C. No. 66 of 1987. The Court below reversed the orders of eviction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior division) and thereby dismissed the eviction petition filed by the petitioners-landlords.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to this revision, briefly stated, are as follows: the petitioners filed an eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act', for short), against late B. R. Kashinath who was the tenant under them in respect of the petition premises. The tenant, B. R. Kashinath died on 30-12-1987 during the pendency of the eviction proceedings before the additional Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chikmagalur. The learned Munsiff allowed the eviction petition under clauses (h) and (i) of Section 21 (1) of the repealed Act. The legal representatives of the deceased tenant took the matter in revision before the District Judge, chikmagalur in Revision Petition No. 10 of 1997. The learned District judge allowed the revision petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant and dismissed the eviction petition. Being aggrieved the petitioners-landlords have preferred this revision.
( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the revision in this Court, the old Act was repealed and in its place the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the present act', for short), which has in its wake brought about far-reaching changes in the matter of regulation of eviction, on the statute book. Certain substantive provisions have been introduced for the first time in the history of rent legislation providing for comprehensive remedies and imparting operational speed and giving the law a contemporary touch. These provisions which are supplemental in nature to Section 27, which primarily is the section which provides the various grounds under which a landlord could evict a tenant, take away certain rights that had vested in the tenants under the repealed Act. One such section is Section 5 which limits the right of tenancy that accrues to the successors on the death of the tenant to various periods. The said provision reads: "5. Inheritability of tenancy. (1) In the event of death of a tenant, the right of tenancy shall devolve for a period of five years from the date of his death to his successors in the following order, namely. (a) spouse; (b) son or daughter or where there are both son and daughter, both of them; (c) parents; (d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his predeceased son: provided that the successor has ordinarily been living or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant as a member of his family upto the date of his death and was dependent on the deceased tenant: provided further that a right to tenancy shall not devolve upon a successor in case such successor or his spouse or any of his dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the local area in relation to the premises let. (2) If a person, being a successor mentioned in sub-section (1), was ordinarily living in or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant but was not dependent on him on the date of his death, or he or his spouse or any of his dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the local area in relation to the premises let to which this Act applies, such successor shall acquire a right to continue in possession as a tenant for a limited period of one year from the date of death of the tenant; and, on the expiry of that period, or on his death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue in possession of th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
