SYED ABDUL WADOOD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W.P. No. 523/1986, the prayer of the petitioner is to 'quash' the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) specially sections 29, 21(l)(a) and 31 of the Act. There is also a prayer to direct the State to enact a uniform legislation for the litigants in the State etc. There was also a prayer for striking down Act 31 of 1975 to the extent of it deleting the provisions for appeal under Section 48.

(2.) Petitioner states that he applied for allotment of a premises under the provisions of the Act, which was opposed by the then landlord. The writ petition proceeds on the assumption that he is the tenant against whom eviction proceedings are pending On the file of the Court of 19th Additional Small Causes, Bangalore. , The writ petition is sketchy about the facts. It straightaway attacks the provisions of the Act as discriminatory because, litigants in Bangalore, are subjected to a discriminatory treatment in the matter of forum. The eviction proceedings in Bangalore are filed in the Court of Small Causes and any order therein is to be challenged by filing revision petition under section 50 before the High Court. In other parts of the State, eviction proceedings are to be filed either before the Court of Civil Judge, if empowered by notification, or before the Court of Munsiff having territorial jurisdiction over the area. In these cases, revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised by the District Judge and those litigants can further approach the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decision of the District Judge - if revision petition under section 115 CPC is barred, still the decision of District Judge can be challenged by invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Thus, the petitioner asserts that, the litigants of other areas in the State have more than two forum to agitate after the original proceedings, whereas, the number of such forum available to Bangalore litigants is only one. Petitioner further avers that the Act is silent as to how an order should be executed. Since important and complicated questions arise in the course of execution of an order, a specific, proper machinery should have been specified. The applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure by virtue of Rule 35 framed under the Rules is criticised as inadequate. Provisions of sections 29 and 21(l)(a) are attacked as vesting arbitrary powers which provide for eviction of a tenant for non- payment of rent, ignoring valid defences that may be available to him. Courts of Small Causes are established under the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964. These courts, which are empowered to decide the disputes under the Act since 1975, have inbuilt limitations in the exercise of their jurisdictions. An eviction proceeding may involve dispute as to several thousands of rupees, or very valuable immoveable property, both of which will be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of court of Small Causes. Therefore, vesting of jurisdiction under the Act on these courts, is attacked, without specifying the constitutional provisions which are contravened by this vesting of such a jurisdiction. The petitioner sought a reference to this Court under section 113 CPC, from the Court of Small causes on these questions. Having failed in getting the reference, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) W.P. No. 17185/86 is by another tenant against whom proceedings for eviction is pending on the file of the 16th Additional Judge of Small Causes Court, Bangalore City. He seeks a declaration that Courts of Small Causes, Bangalore City, have no jurisdiction, under the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, under the Act or under the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act, 1978 to try HRC cases under section 21 of the Act. He further seeks a declaration that section. 29(4) of the Act to the extent it reads, - "and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises or dismiss the appeal or revision petition as the case may be" as unconstitutional, violative of Article 14, unreasonable, unjust and oppressive. The grounds urged in support of the prayer are substantially similar to the one urged in the first writ petition referred above.