SUNDARI ACHARTHI Vs. N SHANKARA BANGERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before me is the original tenant against whom a proceeding had been instituted under Section 21 (l) (h) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961 by the respondent who was the then landlady. The Trial Court dismissed the suit principally because, the Court was not satisfied with regard to the status of the respondent who had contended that she was a tenant with one Leelavathy and the Court held that there were certain discrepancies with regard to the production of the rent receipts as also with regard to the so-called agreement between the parties and that therefore, the landlady had no case made out for the grant of the relief. The landlord filed a revision against the order of the Trial Court and the learned Principal District Judge, Dakshina Kannada in Rev. (Rent) No. 107 of 1993 reversed the decision of the Trial court. The Revisional Court was essentially satisfied that the landlord had made out a bona fide case for recovery of possession and consequently, decreed the suit. The present house rent revision petition has been directed against that order.

(2.) ORIGINALLY, when the petition first came up for hearing, the respondent-landlord through his learned Advocate put forward some offer with regard to the grant of time to vacate but, the petitioner was not agreeable to accept the offer, as her essential submission was that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on merits in the present petition. The main submission canvassed is that by virtue of the repeal of the earlier Rent act and also by virtue of the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka rent Act, 1999 that this Court would have to decide the petition on the basis of the provisions of law as are now applicable. It is true that certain changes have taken place as far as this field of legislation is concerned and it is possibly for this reason that the Legislature has desired that even in respect of certain categories of pending proceedings the new provision should apply. In keeping with this principle, Mr. Rao, learned Counsel who represents the petitioner submitted that the Court would have to apply the provisions of Section 27 (2) (r) of the present Act which reads as follows.

(3.) THE most substantial head of challenge emanates from the next submission canvassed viz. , that the proviso to Section 27 (2) (r) prescribes that in respect of transferred premises an application under the section shall not be entertained unless the period of one year has elapsed since the date of transfer. Mr. Rao submitted that the suit in question was instituted in November 1991 by the respondent-landlord even though the landlord only acquired the premises on 20th February, 1991. The submission was that admittedly 12 calendar months or one year had not elapsed since the date on which the premises had been acquired through transfer and that consequently, the proviso would present a legal bar to the maintainability of the suit. In other words, what is now submitted is that applying the proviso to Section 27 (2) (r) that this Court must uphold the submission that the suit which was filed in the year 1991 was not maintainable only because, the limitation period had not expired.