BALAWANT SHAMRAO DESHPANDE Vs. SADASHIV HARIPANT KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal hsa come before us on a reference made by Justice Venkataswami by his order d| .22nd Nov 1972 on the ground that there is some conflict between the decisions of this Court in the cases in Parvath Bai v.Damodar Anant Hegde, (1965) 1 MysLJ. 100. and the unreponte decision in Situ Hengsu v. B. Kamalabai, ExSA. 100/1966. decided on 14-4-1967 on the question of applicability of S.21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 to pending proceedings.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 6 instituted RCS.377 of 1954 in the Court of the Munsiff at Belgaum on the 25th of August 1964 for possession of the suit house situate in Madhavapur and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.280 alleging that the appellant-defendant is a monthly tenant under them and that his tenancy has been duly terminted. The I Addl Munsiff Belgaum made a decree for possession and arrears of rent of Rs.217 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment and for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.7 per month from the date Off suit till the date of delivery of possession. CA.229 of 1966 preferred against the said decree was dismissed by -the II Addl Civil Judge Belgaum. It is the said decree made by the II Addl Civil Judge that is challenged by the defendant in this second appeal.

(3.) It was contended by Shri W.K.Joshi learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Civil Judge committed an error of law in holding that S.21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is not applicable to the pending proceedings. S.21 which is in Part V of the Act provides that no order or decree for possession of any premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord and against the tenant except on an application made tothe Court only on one or more grounds specified in that section. Part V of the Act became applicable to the area described as " Belgaum Municipal Borough " in Item 1 of Sch.II to the Act with effect from 31-12-1961 the date when the Act came into force. Admittedly Madhavapur was not a part of the Belgaum Municipal Borough area on 31-12-1961. It was submitted that Part V of the Act which was not applicable to Madhavapur on the date of suit was made applicable to Madhavapur during the pendency of the appeal in the Court below. It was contended that the learned Civil Judge committed an error of law in holding that S.21 of the Act which became applicable during thet pendency of the appeal cannpt govern pending proceedings. On this qustion Justice Venkataswami noticed that there is a conflict between the two decisions of this Court viz the) one reported in 1965(1) MysLJ. 100(1) and the decision in ExSA. 100 of 1966. It is tq resolve this conflict that the appeal has been referred to a Division Bench.