P KANNASWAMY Vs. B L SHANKARANARAYANA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B.L.Shankaranarayana Shetty applied under S.21(1) proviso(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for eviction of P.Kannaswamy in HRC.700/67 from shop premises bearing No.110 in Raja Market, Avenue Road, Bangalore City. The contention of the landlord was that he needed the shop for his own reasonable and bonafide occupation and for that he determined the tenancy by serving a notice to quit upon the tenant. According to the respondent-landlord, the lease was ior a period from 1-12-62 to 31-3-63, i.e., for four months. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant assumed the status of a statutory tenant. Subsequently, an argument was founded that the notice to quit was not necessary Ior a statutory tenant. There was also a plea initially that the tenant had fallen due in arrears of rent although that plea was subsequently given up. The learned First Munsiff, Bangalore allowed the petition. Thereafter, the tenant came in appeal before the First Additional District Judge, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the eviction order made by the Munsiff. Now, the present revision is filed against the judgment of the First Additional District Judge.

(2.) Both the learned Munsiff and the learned First Appellate Judge have held that after the expiry of four months period, the tenant became a statutory tenant and as such, a notice to quit was not required. It was an admitted finding that the notice to quit Ext.P.4, was not served, as the report indicated that the tenant was not available at his residence. That is why, insistence was made on behalf of the landlord for the plea that a notice to quit was not a legal requirement in the case. The contention on behalf of the tenant was that he became governed by a fresh contract of tenancy by holding over under S.116 of the Transfer of Property Act. If that was so, the tenancy was required to be determined before the application seeking eviction was to be made under S.21 (1) of the Act.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent-landlord that the present revision is time barred. Under a mathematical calculation for the period taken to file a revision from the date of the judgment of the District Judge excluding the period required for taking a certified copy, a delay of 78 days is calculated. There is no dispute as to that period. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant however contended that S.50 of the Act never provided for any limitation. In that connection he referred to S.48 which provided 30 days period for filing the appeal. Thereby, the learned Counsel contended that the residuary article in the Limitation Act providing for three years period should be made applicable. The learned counsel tor the respondent-landlord in that connection referred to Rule 6 of Chapter VII of the High Court of Karataka Rules 1959. According to this rule, petitions to revise the order of a proceeding of any court, for which no period of limitation is prescribed by any law applicable to it, are to be presented to the High Court within a period of 90 days from the date of the order complained of and in computing that period, provisions of S.12 of the Indian Limitation Act, are made applicable. It was then contended that the order of a proceeding in the instant case was not made by a 'Court', as the Court notified under S.3(d) of the Act is only a persona designata. That may be so with reference to jurisdiction to be exercised by that court. Can it be stated that he ceased to be a Court even for the purpose of Rule 6 Chapter VII? That is the question to be decided. In that connection, the learned counsel relied on Winnifred Mathias vs. Louisa Correa, (1968) 1 MysLJ. 573. That case related to the application of Mysore Civil Courts Act (21 of 1964) to a court appointed under the Karnataka Rent Control Act with reference to its S.48. In that connection it was held that the court notified under the Karnataka Rent Control Act will not be a Civil Court contemplated under the Mysore Civil Courts Act (21 of 1964). As such that decision shall not be an authority for interpreting the expression "Court" with reference to Rule 6 of Chapter VII of the High Court of Karnataka Rules. Therefore, in my opinion, if the expression "Court" is used in Rule C, it refers as well, to a court notified under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, to decide petitions under S.21(1) of that Act.