The Rent Control Court is debarred from proceeding with the matter when there is a serious dispute regarding the title, and must direct the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of their rights.

( 1 ) ALL these revision petitions are by the tenants. H. R. R. P. No. 417 of 2003 relates to H. R. C. No. 1566 of 1998; H. R. R. P. No. 427 of 2003 relates to h. R. C. No. 1564 of 1998; H. R. R. P. No. 426 of 2003 relates to H. R. C. No. 1563 of 1998 and H. R. R. P. No. 428 of 2003 relates to H. R. C. No. 1565 of 1998.

( 2 ) IN all these petitions the landlord is common and the tenants are different.

( 3 ) DURING the course of this order, the landlord would be referred to as the petitioner and the tenants will be referred to as the respondents.

( 4 ) THE petitioner initiated eviction proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking eviction of the respondents under Section 21 (1) (h) and (j) of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that all the respondents are tenants under the petitioner in respect of the shop premises bearing No. 286 situate at Thimmaiah Road, Civil Station, Bangalore and all the respondents are paying a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- and the tenancy being of English calendar month.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the schedule shops are under the occupation of the respondents. The son of the petitioners is unemployed and he intends to start his business in readymade garment in the schedule shops. The son possesses sufficient knowledge in the readymade garment business as he had worked as a manager in some of the prestigious readymade garments shops and thereby had acquired sufficient experience. They further averred that they have sufficient funds to finance the son's business in readymade garment business. Notwithstanding several requests made by the petitioners, the respondents are not intending to vacate the schedule premises. Consequently, they were constrained to initiate eviction proceedings.

( 6 ) THE respondents entered appearance, inter alia, contended in the first instance that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant inter se between them as according to them the petitioners do not have title to the suit property as their vendor himself had lost the title in another proceeding. They further contended that the requirement of the petitioners was not genuine and generally denied the bona fide requirement of the petitioners.

( 7 ) WHEN the eviction petitions were pending, the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was replaced by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. In the said new enactment, a provision was included, namely, Section 43, wherein when there is a serious dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant, it was obligatory on the part of the Court to stay the proceedings and direct the parties to seek their redressal in an appropriate Court for declaration of the title. In these circumstances, the tenants in all these eviction petitions maintained applications questioning the relationship of landlord and tenant. In H. R. C. No. 1566, 1564 and 1565 of 1998 they filed necessary applications as contemplated under Section 43 of the Act, inter alia, contending that the petitioners do not have title to the schedule property. In H. R. C. No. 1563 of 1998 an application under Section 151 of the CPC was made reiterating the same stand questioning the title of the petitioners. The said applications were taken up for consideration by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge rejected the said applications on the ground that it is not open to the tenants to raise such a dispute regarding jural relationship of landlord and tenant and he ultimately came to the conclusion that since the petitioners were permitted to receive the rent from the tenants they are entitled to maintain the said eviction petitions. Consequently, he rejected the applications filed by the respondents. The said orders of the learned Trial Judge are challenged by the respondents in these revision petitions.

( 8 ) 1 have heard Shri Mujeeb and Sri Janardhan, learned Counsels appearing for the respondents as well as Sri C. R. U. Goulay, learned Counsel for the petitioners in detail. The