The abatement of revision proceedings under the old act led to the enforceability of the order of eviction.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord in regard to a shop premises measuring more than 14sq. m. situated at Sakleshpur (Premises for short ). The landlord filed HRC No. 3/1995 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Sakleshpur for eviction of the tenant under Section 21 (1) Provisos (a) (h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (Old Act for short ). After evidence, the said petition was allowed under Section 21 (1) Proviso (h) of the Old Act by order dated 18. 8. 2000 and the tenant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the landlord within one month.

( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved, the tenant (petitioner herein) filed a Revision Petition under Section 50 (2) of the Old Act before the District Judge, Hassan on 31-8-2000 registered as HRC. R. P. No. 19/2000.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the said revision proceedings, the Old Act was replaced by the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 (New Act for short ). Sections 1, 3 and 6 of the New Act came into force on 5. 12. 2001 and the remaining provisions of the New Act came into force on 31. 12. 2001. The provisions of the New Act were inapplicable to the premises having regard to Section 2 (3) (g) of the New Act which excluded its applicability to any premises used for non-residential purposes (excluding premises having a plinth area of not exceeding fourteen sq. mt. used for commercial purposes ). In view of it, the Revisional Court passed an order dated 30. 8. 2002 holding that revision petition stood abated.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the tenant has filed this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the Revisional Court ought to have held that the entire eviction proceedings in HRC 3/1995 stood abated and as a consequence the order of Eviction dated 18-8-2000 was honest and unenforceable, instead of holding that only the revision proceedings abated. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter has referred it to the Division Bench for decision apparently in view of the conflict between the decision of the Division Bench in MERCURY PRESS vs. AMEEN SHACOOR (ILR 2002 KAR. 2304) and the ecisions of two learned Single Judges of this Court in DIESEL (INDIA) vs KAMALAMMA (ILR 2002 KAR 4592) and ISMAIL vs. SUSHILA BAI (ILR 2003 KAR. 141 ).

( 5 ) IN MERCURY PRESS, and identical argument was advanced, which was noticed in para 7 (2) extracted below: 7. 2. As the old Act, under which the eviction proceedings were initiated ending with an order of eviction, has been repealed, and as sub section 2 (c) of Section 70 of the New Act provides that all cases and proceedings pending in regard to premises to which the New Act did not apply shall stand abated as from 31. 12. 2001, the entire proceedings, that is, not only the pending revision, but the order of eviction under the Old Act from which such Revision Petition arises, stands abated and therefore the order of eviction become nonest. The said contention was resisted by the landlords contending that the order of eviction was passed under the Old Rent Act; that the subsequent repeal of the Old Act with effect from 31-12-2001 did not affect the orders of eviction already passed under the Old Act, having regard to Section 70 (3) of the new Act read with Section 6 (c) and (e) of General Clauses Act; and that any Revision Petition filed by the tenants under Section 50 of the Old Act, either before 31. 12. 2001 or on or after 31. 12. 2001 would stand abated having regard to the Provisions of Section 70 (2) (c) of the New Act and consequently the orders of eviction became final and conclusive and the Landlords will be entitled to execute the said orders of eviction. Considering the said contentions, the Division Bench held: clause (c) is the residuary provision under Sub-Section (2), which applies to all other cases and proceedings (that is proceedings other than execution proceedings and proceedings covered by Clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 70) pending in respe