DIWAKARAN Vs. K R VASUDEVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents filed HRC No.242/2008 under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking to evict the petitioner herein. By the impugned order the Revision Petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the Petition schedule premises within 6 months thereof. Aggrieved by the same, the present Petition is filed.

(2.) $ri Gangi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned order is erroneous on facts and law and liable to be interfered with.

(3.) The first contention is that the impugned order has been passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He therefore contends that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. The proceedings have been initiated and continued under the Karnataka Rent Act and hence the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal could not have any jurisdiction to entertain this Petition. The submission of the learned counsel is based on the cause-title to the Judgment wherein it has been mentioned as 'Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal'. The same is only a typing error and nothing more. Even otherwise there is no injury or harm that is caused to the petitioner since the concerned Judge who passed the order had jurisdiction under law to pass the said order. On mere wrong mentioning of nomenclature of the Court would not entitle the impugned order to be declared as null and void. For that reason, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable.