TARA DEVI Vs. SAKKU BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision filed under Section 115 of the CPC the petitioners landlords have questioned the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Chikmagalur in Revision Petition No. 10 of 1997 allowing the revision petition filed by the respondents-tenants against the orders of eviction passed by the learned Civil judge (Junior Division) in H. R. C. No. 66 of 1987. The Court below reversed the orders of eviction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior division) and thereby dismissed the eviction petition filed by the petitioners-landlords.

(2.) THE facts leading to this revision, briefly stated, are as follows: the petitioners filed an eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act', for short), against late B. R. Kashinath who was the tenant under them in respect of the petition premises. The tenant, B. R. Kashinath died on 30-12-1987 during the pendency of the eviction proceedings before the additional Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chikmagalur. The learned Munsiff allowed the eviction petition under clauses (h) and (i) of Section 21 (1) of the repealed Act. The legal representatives of the deceased tenant took the matter in revision before the District Judge, chikmagalur in Revision Petition No. 10 of 1997. The learned District judge allowed the revision petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant and dismissed the eviction petition. Being aggrieved the petitioners-landlords have preferred this revision.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the revision in this Court, the old Act was repealed and in its place the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the present act', for short), which has in its wake brought about far-reaching changes in the matter of regulation of eviction, on the statute book. Certain substantive provisions have been introduced for the first time in the history of rent legislation providing for comprehensive remedies and imparting operational speed and giving the law a contemporary touch. These provisions which are supplemental in nature to Section 27, which primarily is the section which provides the various grounds under which a landlord could evict a tenant, take away certain rights that had vested in the tenants under the repealed Act. One such section is Section 5 which limits the right of tenancy that accrues to the successors on the death of the tenant to various periods. The said provision reads: