R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) ALL these revision petitions relate to eviction proceedings initiated under the proviso the section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ['the Act' or 'the KRC Act' for short] filed in respect of non-residentiat premises, the rent of which exceeds Rs. 500/- per month.

( 2 ) THE revision petitions in HRRP Nos. 423/1996, 425/1996, 465/ 1996, 1719/1996 and 548/1997, are filed by tenants against whom orders of eviction have been passed under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act. The revision petitions in HRRP Nos. 438/1996 and 1148/1996 are filed by the landlords against the rejection of their eviction petitions filed under Section 21 (1) (a) (h) of the Act. The revision petitions in HRRP Nos. 1415/1997 and 12/1998 are filed by the tenants aggrieved by the rejection of their interlocutory applications for dismissal of eviction petitions filed against them under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act on the ground that the eviction petitions under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act were not maintainable.

( 3 ) PART V of the Act deals with control of eviction of tenants. Section 21 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant; provided that the Court (as defined in section 3 (d) of the Act) may on an application made to it, make an order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more of the grounds specified therein. Section 31 of the Act provides that the provisions of Part V of the Act shall not apply to non-residential premises the rent of which exceeded Rs. 500/- per months (or the annual rental value of which exceeded Rs. 6000/- ).

( 4 ) HAVING regard to the exemption contained in Section 31, the owners/landlords of non-residential premises the rent of which exceeded Rs. 500 per month, continued to file Civil suits, after terminating the tenancy as required by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('tp Act' for short) and owners/landlords of other premises filed petitions for eviction under the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act. When matters stood thus, a Division Bench of this court in PADMANABHA RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR1986 KAR 2480 , 1987 (1 )Karlj176 declared Section 31 of the Act as void, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. That decision attained finality. With effect from the date of the said judgment (1. 7. 1986), the litigant public had to proceed on the basis that Section 31 of the act was not in the Statute book and consequently the provisions of Chapter V of the Act applied even to non-residential buildings the rent of which exceeded Rs. 500/- (or annual rental value of which exceeded Rs. 6,000/-) and therefore file petitions for eviction under Chapter V of the KRC act, instead of terminating the tenancies and filing Civil suits for possession. In fact, many original Suits which were pending in Civil Courts on the date of the decision in padmanabha RAO were dismissed on the ground that the remedy of the landlords was to file eviction petitions under the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act and those landlords filed eviction petition under Section 21 (1 ). This situation continued till 1. 11. 1996.

( 5 ) A Division Bench of this Court in H. V. RAJAN v. SHOBHA SURENDAR, RFA No. 351/1983 decided on 18. 1. 1991 had allowed an appeal filed by a tenant and set aside a decree dated 8. 8. 1983 for possession passed by a Civil Court in a Suit filed in the year 1980 in regard to a non-residential premises the rent of which was more than Rs. 500/ per month, on the ground that Section 31 of KRC Act was struck down in PADMANABHA RAO's case, during the pendency of the appeal and consequently the remedy of the landlord was under the Rent Control act and the decree for possession passed in the suit had become unsustainable. The said decision was c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document