IJBULRAHIMAN ISMAILSAB BHAISARKAR Vs. MALLIKARJUN VEERABHADRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition by the tenant is directed against the order of the revisional Court dated 27. 03. 2004 allowing the application-IA No. 3 filed by the landlord in Rent Revision Petition No. 15/ 2001 under Section 29 (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 which corresponds to section 45 (4) of the new Rent Act i. e. the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (the 'new Rent Act' for short ). By the impugned order, the revisional Court by invoking Section 45 (4) of the new Rent act has stopped all further proceedings and has directed the petitioner/tenant to put the respondent/landlord in possession of the petition premises.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as section 45 of the new Rent Act does not apply to a revision petition preferred or prosecuted by the landlord. In support of his submission, he relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in abdul HAMEED YOUSUFF SAIT v. KALAVATI, 1969 RCR 60 and a judment of this Court in N. A. AMEER AHMED v. KARIYAPPA, 1970 Mys. L. J. Sh. N 309.

(3.) THE aforesaid judgments fully support the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is relevant to extract Section 45 of the new Rent Act: