GUNDU RAO PRAHLAD BELGAUMKAR Vs. CHANNAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an order passed in HRC.20/69 on the file of the 1st Addl. Munsiff, Bharwar, on the 13th of December, 1972. The respondent, Channawwa filed the above petition in HRC.20/69 against the petitioner Gundu Rao Pralhad Rao, praying for the eviction, of the petitioner from the premises described in the petition. It was her case that the petitioner was a tenant under her occupying the said premises. The petitioner pleaded that he was not a tenant under the respondent and the petition was liable to be rejected. He also pleaded that the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under S.21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act. The issue whether the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent or not was tried as a preliminary issue by the learned Munsiff. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties and some documents were marked as exhibits. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced before him, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a tenant and that he had jurisdiction to proceed with the case under the Mysore Rent Control Act. After recording the said finding he posted the case for further hearing on the other issues which arose for consideration.

(2.) Aggrieved by the finding recorded by the learned Munsiff on the question whether the petitioner was a tenant or not, the petitioner has presented this revision petition under Sec.50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act. Section 50 reads as follows :

(3.) It is not disputed that the proceedings in HRC.29/69 are still pending before the learned Munsiff and no final order has been passed by him. The question for consideration in this revision petition is whether the High Court should in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.50 interefere with the order of the learned Munsiff on the question whether the petitioner is a tenant or not at this stage. It is not disputed and it cannot be disputed that after a final order is passed by the Munsiff in the case pending before him, it is open to any party who is aggrieved by his order to file an appeal under S.48 of the Act before the District Judge and to challenge in that appeal the correctness of the finding recorded by the Munsiff on the question whether the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent or not. It is needless to say that the power of a Court of appeal is co-extensive with the power of the Court of first instance in the absence of any limitation being placed on the appellate power by the statute affording the right of appeal. From the decision of the District Judge rendered in the appeal before him a revision petition lies to the High Court under clause(1) of S.50(1) of the Act.