MANJU RAMAKRISHNA NAIK Vs. UMESH SHRIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC and directed against the decree in RA.No.139 of 1970 on the file of the Civil Judge, Karwar, dismissing the appeal of the appellant and affirming the decree in OS.No.397 of 1962 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Honavar.

(2.) Briefly, the facts so far as they are material for the disposal of the only contention urged in support of the appeal, are : The resplendent-landlord instituted the suit on 5-11-1962 seeking a decree for possession of the suit shop premises, arrears of rent and mesne profits, principally on the ground that the appellant-tenant had defaulted in payment of arrears of rent due for the period 22-2-1962 to 1-11-1962. At the time of institution of the suit, parts IV and V of the Mysore (Now Karnataka) Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, comprising Ss.19 to 31, regulating payment of rents by tenants and their eviction, had not been extended and made applicable to Honavar town which is concerned herewith. The said provisions, however, were made applicable to the area for the first time with effect from 1-6-1963, when the suit was still pending in the Court of first instance. Taking advantage Of the change in the law, the appellant raised a contention substantially to the effect that the suit would not be maintainable in the face of the express prohibition enacted in sub-sec(1) of s.21 of the Act.

(3.) Both the Courts below negatived the contention and decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits only, the claim regarding arrears of rent not having survived for consideration for one reason or another. The first appellate Court, in negativing the said contention, however, depended almost exclusively on a ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ibrahim v. Mandepanda Cariappa ((1971) 1 MysLJ. 453).