A. MUNIYAPPA Vs. K. DHRUVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up on merits for final disposal.

(2.) THE appeal is filed against the findings on issue No. 3 followed by the decree of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. 4307/93. The appellant who is the plaintiff, filed the suit for possession of the suit premises from the defendant. It is the contention of the plaintiff before the trial Court that the suit premises situated in Kengeri Town was leased to the respondent and there has been lawful termination of tenancy, and accordingly prayed for possession. Amongst the defence pleas taken, jurisdiction of the civil Court was one of the them which is reflected in issue No. 3. It is the contention of the respondent that the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short, referred to as the Act) would apply and a civil suit would not lie. The trial Court upheld the objection of the defendant and dismissed the suit. However, in respect of arrears of rent claimed, the Court ordered return of the plaint for proper presentation. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) IN the instant case, the suit premises is within the limits of Kengeri Town Municipality. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that a separate/special notification ought to have been issued to cover the provisions of the Act to areas covered by Kengeri and in the absence of such special notification, the provisions of the Act would not automatically apply. Refuting the contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on a ruling of our High Court in the case of Shaik Ismail Shaik Moidin v. Ramachandra Mahabaleshwar Raikar, reported in 1988(1) Kant.LJ 207 (2) wherein it is held thus :-