BABU A Vs. BHASKER SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 9 2-1982 of the 1st Addl. Munsiff, Mangalore, on IA No. XIII in HRC No, 93 of 1976 pending on his file.

(2.) The petitioner is the respondent in that HRC proceeding. The respondent herein has initiated that proceedipg under S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act) to evict the petitioner from the premises in question. IA No. XIII was filed by this petitioner stating that that Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the landlord's claim that the properties involved were agricultural properties that the Mangalore L?nd Tribunal had declared him as a tenant and that, therefore, the proceeding before it (the Court) should be dropped After hearing the parties concerned the learned MunsifY has dismissed IA XIII.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised in this Court as to the maintainability of this revision. The learned counsel for the respondent, who was heard in the matter, submitted that this revision, filed as it is, under S.115 of CPC, was not maintainable, since there is an effective alternate remedy open to this petitioner under the Act. He refers to sub-sec. (2) of S. 50 of the Act. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to an order of this nature that provision is not attracted, since the implication of the impugned order is merely procedural not affecting the rights of 1m party: