SARVOTHAMA CHOORYA Vs. G M GOPALA BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three civil revision petitions have been referred to the Division Bench by the learned single Judge on the ground that they involved an important question of jurisdiction in the matter of execution of orders made by Courts under the then existing provisions of S. 42 of the Kar. Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The necessary facts for understanding the containtions urged in these cases may briefly be stated as follows: The respondents in these three cases who are the landlords applied to the Court under S. 42 of the Act as it then stood for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of lands leased to the petitioners In the year 1972, the Court has made orders in favour of the contesting respondents-landlords under S.42 of the Act as it then stood directing that the specified amounts of rent be paid by the respective petitioners tenants. Thereafter, the respondents- decree-holders filed execution case Nos. 273, 314 and 463 of 1977 respectively in the Court of the Munsiff, Puttur, to execute the orders and to recover the decretal amounts. Before the learned Munsiff, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the Court of Munsiff has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petitions to execute the orders made by the Court under S. 42 of the Act. It became possible for the judgment debtors to raise this contention having regard to the amendments that were effected to the Act in the meanwhile. On the date on which the orders were made under S. 42 of the Act as it then stood, it is not disputed and cannot be disputed that the Court, as defined under the Act, namely, the Court of the Munsiff, had jurisdiction to make orders regarding recovery of rent from the concerned tenants. Orders made under S. 42 of the Act as it then stood could have been executed as decrees of Civil Courts in accordance with S. 116 of the Act as it then stood. It is therefore clear that in the year 1972 when the decree holders obtained orders, in their favour under S. 42 of the Act they were entitled to execute the said orders as if they were decrees of the Court by approaching the Court of the Munsiff for that purpose as provided by S. 116 of the Act as it then stood. The decree holders, however, did not execute the orders before S. 116 came to be substituted. By Kar. Act No. 1 of 1974 extensive amendments were effected to the provisions of the Act. For the word 'Court' occuring in S. 42, the word 'Tahsildar' was substituted, with the result it is the Tahsildar that became the authority competent to make orders in the matter of recovery of rent. S. 116 of the Act regarding execution of orders was substituted by the following section :

(3.) S. 42 of the Act prescribes the procedure for recovery of rent and designates the authority which is competent to make appropriate orders regarding payment of rent. S. 116 is a general provision providing for execution of all orders in regard to payment of money and in regard to restoration of possession. It is therefore clear that express provisions have been enacted in the Act providing special procedure in the matter of recovering of rent and in the matter of enforcing or executing such orders.