MERCURY PRESS BANGALORE Vs. AMEEN SHACOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 6 were the petitioners and petitioners 1 and 2 were respondents 1 (1) and 1 (5) in HRC No. 10568 of 1994, on the file of the court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Respondents 7 to 13 herein were the respondents 1 (2), 1 (3), 1 (4), 1 (7), 1 (8), 1 (9) and 1 (10) respectively in the said eviction petition. For convenience, respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as 'landlords' and the petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 7 to 13 will together be referred as 'tenants'.

(2.) THE said eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenants (the L. Rs of A. Rajagopal who was running Mercury Press in the petition schedule premises) under Section 21 (1) proviso (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'old HRC Act' or 'old Act' ). The petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises, measuring more than 14 sq. mts. The said petition was allowed by order dated 17-11-2001 under proviso (h) to Section 21 (1) of the said Act. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents 1 and 5 in the eviction petition, representing 'mercury Press', have filed this revision petition under Section 50 (1) of the old Act, on 4-2-2002.

(3.) WHEN the revision petition came up for admission, the respondents 1 to 6 (landlords) contended that the revision petition was liable to be either dismissed as not maintainable or treated as having abated, having regard to the provisions of Section 70 (3) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('new Rent Act' or 'new Act', for short), relying on the decision in saptagiri Complex, Bangalore and Others v Bhupathi Naidu. On the other hand, the petitioners contended that the revision petition was maintainable relying on the decision in Jain Cloth Stores, Bangalore v m. Kewalchand (deceased) by L. Rs. In view of the divergent views, farooq, J. , by order dated 1-3-2002 has referred this matter to a Division bench.