SUBRAY PHONDU PRABHU Vs. FATHIMABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioners-tenants under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution assailing the order dated 19. 8. 2002 passed by the District Judge, Uttara Kannada, in hrc. RP. No. 1/1998 and the Judgment and Order dated 21. 11. 1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn. ,) Ankola, in HRC. No. 2/1981 mainly on the ground that the schedule premises is situated in the Ankola and the Karnataka Rent Act is not at all applicable to the premises situated in Ankola town. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Judge on the eviction petition filed by the respondents stands abated, in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act and the order of the District Judge that the revision petition filed by the petitioners abated is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act and even the order passed by the trial Court is not correct. The findings, given thereof are not based on any sound reasonings and the trial Court ought to have seen the title to the proof is not by issue of sales certificate but for flow of title to the property. The finding of the trial Court holding entries in the Record of rights and the Municipal extract are also changed in the name of the respondents as per the sales certificate is not a good proof of title as the bringing of the Record of Rights in the Municipal extract will not confer any title to the person unless the flow of title is proved. These records are not sufficient to prove the onus or title to the property. But the trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the respondent is the owner of the said premises and the trial Court has not given proper reasons that the premises are required for his bona fide use and occupation. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) THIS Court heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. It is seen that the L. Rs of Janab Abdul sattar Shaikh Usman have filed the petition under Section 21 (1) (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent control Act 1961 for eviction with a prayer to pass a decree in favour of them against the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the premises, payment of all rents due, under Section 29. After considering the evidence of both parties, the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Ankola allowed the petition filed by the respondents-owners herein and the respondents are hereby directed to handover vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondents petitioners within one month and the respondents-landlords are entitled to recover the arrears of rent at the admitted rate of Rs. 20/- per month from the date of petition till the date of taking possession of the petition schedule premises from 27. 11. 1997. Accordingly, the petitioners who has preferred a revision petition under Section 50 before the District Judge in HRC. RP. No. 1/1998 of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the matter was pending before the revisional Court, the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, was repealed and the Karnataka Kent Act of 1999 came into force. Therefore, the revision petition, which was pending on the file of the District Judge, Uttara Kannada, came to be abated as per the order dated 19. 8. 2002 arising out of the Ankola Taluk. Therefore, the petitioners herein have come up with this writ petition to quash the order dated 21. 11. 1997 at Annexure-A passed by the civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.), Ankola, in HRC. No. 2/1981.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, the learned Counsel. Sri. Kulkarni for the petitioners contended that the respondents herein have not at all proved their title over the said property. Mere production of R. T. C. and the Municipal Tax Receipts, khata extract does not get any title and the trial Court has not considered all these aspects and simply allowed the petition filed by the respondents under Section 21 (1) (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. It is further contended that the Karnataka Rent Act 1961 is not applicable to the premises situated in Ankola town, Hence, the learned District Judge ought to have held that the eviction petition filed by the respondents stands abated in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act and the order of the District Judge holding that the revision petition filed by the petitioners stands abated is erroneous. Further it is submitted that in the first schedule of the Karnataka Rent Act of 1999, the Ankola town is not included either in Past A or Part B of the first schedule. Only the areas within the limits of Cities constituted under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976 and within a radius of 3 Kilometres from the limit of that area, this Act is applicable. So also as Part b of first schedule of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999: areas within the limits of City Municipal Councils constituted under Karnataka Municipalities act, 1964" only this Act is applicable. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the District Judge that the revision petition is abated in view of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, is not correct. 3. In support of all these contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioners referring to a decision in the case of BANSILAL v. Dr. N. C. NAGARAJ reported in 2005 (4) KCCR 2419 wherein this Court has held: the proceedings with respect to those premises were pending when 1961 Act lapsed by time, i. e. , 31. 12. 2001. The provision of the 1961 Act in those areas, where it was applicable earlier, came to an end because of lapse of time and not because of repeal under 1999 Act.