D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J

This civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the defendant in OS No 3797 of 2000, on the file of the XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore city, being aggrieved by the order dated 28-1-2006, passed by the learned trial judge IA-V.

2. The respondent in the revision petition, who is the plaintiff, had instituted the suit against the sole defendant praying for recovery of possession of the suit sche- dule property on the ground that the ten- ancy has been determined and that the defendant was required to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule pro perty etc and for future mesne profit etc.

3. The suit had been resisted by the defendant-petitioner and written statement had been filed. Issues had been-framed and the parties had gone to trial on the issues framed. An application came to be filed by the defendant on 14-10-2004 invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 (d) CPC praying for rejection of the plaint, which was numbered as IA- V and it is dismissal of this application under the impugned order, which has given rise for this revision petition.

4. The learned trial judge, who had occasion to examine the contents of the application and the objections filed by the defendant, had formulated point as to whether suit deserves to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) CPC and upon consideration of the materials placed on record, the learned trial judge thought it fit to dismiss the application and accordingly dismissed the application.

5. The respondent in the revision petition having been put on notice, has entered appearance. The petitioner is represented by Sri Ashok Haranahalli and the respondent is represented by Sri. S R Krishnakumar, who have been heard at some length at the final hearing of this petition.

6. What is essentially urged on behalf of the petitioner by Sri Ashok Haranahalli is that the learned trial judge has committed material error amounting to illegality in rejecting the application; that the learned trial judge should have noticed that the very suit itself was not tenable in law; that in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 [for short, the 1961 Act] when a suit was instituted prior to 2000, the provisions of this Act were in force and therefore a suit of this nature should not have been entertained by the civil court and as there was a bar for entertaining the suit and it was a fit case for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC but the learned trial judge having ignored this legal provision and having dismissed the application, proceeded with the suit and therefore the impugned orders calls for interference by this court.

7. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the legal principle that the suit when instituted if is not tenable, it amounts to a still born suit or something void in law and therefore an application of this nature could be filed at any point of time even when parties went for trial and it could have been ordered.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the defence or objection to the application by pointing out that the provisions of the 1961 Act though have come to be repealed including the provisions which, according to the defendant, constituted a bar under Sections 21 and 31 of the 1961 Act and having been replaced by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 [for short, the 1999 Act] cannot be of any of any consequence, because the suit when filed was a suit not tenable in law and therefore a subsequent change in law cannot validate such stillborn suit and such an application should have been necessarily allowed and the plaint rejected. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the other reasoning assigned in support of the impugned order is not tenable.

9. Per contra, Sri Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently urge that it is incorrect to say