MADHURI Vs. VENKAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein claiming to be the tenant under the respondent filed HRC. No. 144/99 before the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Belgaum under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "old Act') praying for permission to deposit the rent of the petition premises. The respondent herein filed objections inter alia contending that there is no relationship between the petitioner and respondent as tenant and landlord; that the Trustees of the Public Trust have no power to create lease without the previous sanction of the Charity commissioner and consequently prayed for dismissal of HRC petition. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) after perusal of the material on record, including the oral and documentary evidence lead on behalf of the petitioner, rejected the petition by holding that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioner herein and consequently the petitioner cannot be allowed to deposit rent before the Court under Section 19 of the old Act.

(2.) THE said order passed in HRC. No. 144/ 99 is confirmed by the learned II Addl. District Judge, belgaum, in HRC. RP. No. 43/2001. The District Court concurred with the Trial Court by observing that the question of permitting the petitioner to deposit rent in the Court under Section 19 of the old Act does not arise as his alleged tenancy is denied by landlord. Assailing the correctness of both the orders, this revision petition is filed by invoking Section 115 of C. P. C.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the old Act of 1961 is repealed and in its place Karnataka Rent Act of 1999 (hereinafter called as "new Act') is enacted by the State legislature and the same came into force with effect from 31. 12. 2000. Thus, the new Act came into force during the pendency of the revision petition before the District Court In this view of the matter, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the District Court had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition, inasmuch as, the said revision should have been transferred to the deputy Commissioner for hearing the matter as an appeal under Section 26 of the new Act.