GANPAT GOVIND KAMBLE Vs. MOHAMMAD GHOUSE A NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has appealed by special leave challenging the affirming decisions of the High court sustaining his eviction.

(2.) The arrears as stated in the application for eviction were confined to the period between 28/10/1960 and 15/12/1961 amounting to Rs. 346. 00 and the application instituted on 5/09/1962 was stated to be under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Defence plea was that a sum of Rs. 250. 00 had been paid towards the municipal taxes for the premises in question by the tenant on 31/01/1962 and this was available to be adjusted against rent. The trial Judge did not allow eviction but made an order for recovery of the arrears. The landlord as also the tenant appealed against the decision of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeals, the Mysore Civil courts Act came into force and under its provisions, pending matters were transferred from the court of the District Judge to the Civil Judge entitled to dispose of appeals. The Civil Judge having decided against the tenant, the tenant took the matter before the High court and contended that the appeal was under S. 29 of the Bombay Act and when directed against the original order lay to the District Judge. In view of such specific provision in the Bombay Act, the appeals could not have been transferred to any other authority subordinate to the District Judge for final disposal on the basis of the Mysore Act. The High court accepted this plea and vacated the appellate judgment and remitted the matter tothe District Judge for disposal. When the tenant again lost before the District Judge, he carried two revisions to the High court.

(3.) In support to the tenants revisions, it was contended before the High court that the Karnataka Rent Control Act came into force in Belgam area with effect from 31/12/1961 and with such Act coming into force, the Bombay Rent Control Act stood repealed from that area. The eviction proceedings were taken on 5/09/1962, i. e. , more than eight months after the Karnataka Act had come into force. As such, the Bombay Act had no more application and eviction could not be ordered by applying the provisions of the Bombay Act. It is not disputed before us that the provisions in regard to eviction under the Bombay Act and the Karnataka Act are substantially different. If the Karnataka Act applied, unless there was default in the matter of payment of rent for six months and more, eviction could not be ordered while the Bombay Act has no such provision. The finding that a sum of Rs. 250. 00 had been paid by the tenant on 31/01/1962 towards municipal taxes is no more in dispute. That being the position, if the Karnataka Act applied on the date of the commencement of proceedings, the tenant would not have been in default in respect of payment of rent for more than six months.