(This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2003 passed in RA No.155/1998 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,) Mysore, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1998 passed in O.S.No.384/96 on the file of the II Additional First Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,), Mysore.)

This appeal is by defendant, questioning the decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court, directing to vacate and hand over possession of suit schedule premises and to pay damages to the plaintiff.

2. Facts which have given rise to this appeal, in a nutshell are:

Respondent/plaintiff is a registered wakf. It owns a building complex at Ashoka Road, Mysore, consisting of shops, office accommodation, etc. It has leased shop Nos.1 and 2 therein, on monthly rent of Rs.75/- each, to appellant/defendant. Plaintiff had filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) & (h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, against the defendant, which was disposed by holding that, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the petition schedule premises. Thereafter, terminating the tenancy of defendant, suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), at Mysore, to direct the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises and pay damages of Rs.3,000/- per month for the wrongful use and occupation of the premises from 1.4.96, till the delivery of actual possession. Suit was contested by the defendant. Based on pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. PW-1 was examined and Ex.P1 to P10 were marked on behalf of plaintiff. DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked on behalf of defendant. Trial Court decreed the suit in part, directing the defendant to vacate and handover vacant possession and pay damages at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from 1.4.96.

2.1 Said decree was questioned by the appellant, in the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), at Mysore, wherein, he filed two applications, to amend the written statement and to permit the production of additional evidence. Without considering the said applications, appeal was dismissed. Challenging the said decrees, this second appeal has been filed.

2.2 After hearing learned counsel on both sides, this appeal was allowed in part, by setting aside the decree for damages and maintaining the decree for possession by judgment dated 6.8.04 (reported in ILR 2004 Kar 4717).

2.3 Both parties questioned the said judgment in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Noticing the fact that, without framing a substantial question of law, as enjoined by Section 100 of CPC, appeal has been disposed of at the admission stage itself, civil appeals were accepted, aforesaid judgment was set aside and the appeal was remitted back for disposal afresh, by first framing question of law if any and then, proceed with the matter and decide the appeal, in accordance with law.

3. Appeal was taken on board and was admitted on 7.1.08, to examine the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether a suit for eviction of a lessee filed by the lessor, a wakf institution in the year 1996 was maintainable before a Civil Court in the light of the provisions of clause (v) of subsection (e) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 as introduced to the Premises Act by Act No.28 of 1981 with effect from 30.9.1980?

2. Whether the suit filed in the year 1996 and as decreed by the trial Court in the year 1998 nevertheless became not tenable during the pendency of the appeal of the lessee before the lower appellate court in the wake of the further amendment to the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 by Act No.22 of 1999 with effect from 4.8.1999 giving the following definition to a public premises which is as under;

3. Whether the lower appellate court was justified in law in holding that the amendment to the definition of public