DATTARAM N ANVEKAR Vs. SHANKAR L PARULEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice .and Justice Bopanna has referred the following question for the opinion of the Full Bench;

(2.) A Division Bench of this Cour4, of which one of us was a member, has answered this question in the affirmative in Balwant Shamrao Deshrande v. Sadashiv Haripant Kulkarrd, But the referring Bench, felt that the, said decision requires re-consideration in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court. In the order of reference, the Division Bench has given the citation of the decision of the Supreme Court as Nalanda Ceramic and Industries Ltd., v. N. S. Choudhury and Co. (P.) Ltd., That decision has no bearing on the question. We are satisfied that the Division Bench really intended to refer to the decision on the next page, i.e., Nandlal v. Motilal, Learned Counsel appearing for both the sides also concur with us.

(3.) The petitioner filed Small Cause Suit No. 101 of 1976 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum for possession of the suit house situate in Angol Extension of the City of Belgaurn, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. The respondent tenant resisted the suit inter alia contending that as the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are applicable, the suit is not maintainable. The petitioner, however, took the stand that though item-1 of Schedule II of the Act is applicable to Belgaum Municipal Borough area, the Act is not applicable to the suit -property, as it is situate to Angol Extension, which area came to be included within the Belgaum Municipal Borough, under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. 1925, which was then in force. long after the II schedule to the Act came into force. He further submitted that as no notification by the State Government has been issued under sub-section (5) of Section 2 applying the provision of Part II of the Act to Angol Extension, the Act is not applicable and that, therefore, the suit is maintainable. In support of his contention the petitioner relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Balawant's case. But it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the decision of this Court in Balawant's case is no more good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Nandlal's case. In view of these rival contentions, the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that he has no jurisdiction to go into the question of jurisdiction under the provisions of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964. Consequently, the learned Civil Judge made an order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. It is the said order that is challenged by the petitioner landlord under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964.