Subhash B. Adi, J.

In exercise of power conferred under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, learned Single Judge by his order dated 8th August, 2003 has referred the revision petition to the Division Bench.

2. During the course of the hearing of the revision petition by the learned Single Judge, Counsel appearing for the tenant cited a decision in the matter of, Smt. Sundari Acharthi v N. Shankara Bangera 2003(2) Kar. L.J. 181. ILR 2002 Kar. 4746 and contended that, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are not applicable to the pending proceedings. On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the landlord cited a decision of this Court in the matter of Smt. Thilothamma and Another v Smt. Rahmathunnisa 2002(6) Kar. L.J. 368 ILR 2002 Kar. 4846 and submitted that, the provisions of the Act would also govern the pending proceedings. The learned Single Judge found that, there is a conflictive view taken by this Court in the above mentioned decisions and referred the matter to the Division Bench particularly on the question of interpretation of the provisions of Section 5 of the Act.

3. Brief facts leading to this case are:

Respondent-landlord had filed a petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KRC Act’ ) inter alia alleging that, the petition premises is required for his bona fide use and occupation. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Belgaum, the original tenant viz., Patric John died on 22-6-1997. A memo was filed by the Counsel representing the tenant to this effect. In view of the same, learned Counsel for the landlord filed an application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased tenant on record and the said application was allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased tenant were brought on record. When the matter was pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), the Karnataka Rent Act received the assent of the President on 22-11-2001 and it was gazetted on 27-11-2001. However, the provisions of Sections 1, 3 and 6 came into force with effect from 5-12-2001 and the remaining provisions came into force with effect from 31-12-2001.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in view of the provisions of Section 70, subsection (2), clause (b) of the Act, found that, the provisions of the Act are applicable to the pending cases and heard the matter, as if it is filed under the provisions of the Act and by his order dated 5th April, 2002 allowed the eviction petition under Section 27, sub-section (2), clause (r) of the Act.

5. It is against the order of eviction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), the legal representatives of the tenant filed a revision petition before the II Additional District Judge, Belgaum. Learned District Judge relying on the decision in Smt. Thilothamma's case dismissed the revision petition observing that, the legal representatives of the tenant have no right of defence and they cannot continue in possession beyond the time stipulated under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act.

6. It is against the said order of the learned District Judge and the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), this revision petition has been filed.

7. We have not only heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, but also Sri Shashikiran Shetty, Sri Udaya Holla, Sri Ramesh Chandra, Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry and Sri S.P. Shankar, who appeared as Amicus Curiae, as the matter involved the interpretation of provisions of Section 3(n), Section 5 and Section 70 of the Act and will have a wider application to the pending cases.

8. The principal contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-legal representatives of the tenant are that, the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of KRC Act and tenant died during the pendency of the proceedings i.e.,