JANAKI Vs. RAMA BANGERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Judgment-debtor/tenant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against the order of the J Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, made in Execution Case No. 395 of 1983 pertaining to O.S. No. 406 of 1973 on his file.

(2.) O.S. No 406 of 1973 was filed by the decree holder plaintiff for recovery of possession of certain immovable property which was in the possession of the Judgment-debtor as a tenant. That suit came to be decreed on 4 9-1979. The immovable property is situated at Peramannur Village which is outside the City limits of Mangalore City. In other words, at the time the suit was filed it was excluded from the purview of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Principal Act'). It was in that circumstances, the suit had to be filed as an Original Suit in the Court having necessary territorial jurisdiction. The execution case, as is apparent, was filed on 5-9-1983. However, by Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amendment Act'), Schedules I, II and III of the Principal Act were amended by Section 4 of the Amendment Act. Section 4 of the Amendment Act reads as follows : "4. Substitution of Schedules I, II and III: For Schedules I, II and III of the Principal Act, the following Schedules shall be substituted, namely : SCHEDULE I (See Section 2(2)) A. Areas within the limits of the Cities under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the areas within a radius of three kilometres from the limits of the said cities. XXX XXX XXX In terms of Section 1 of the Amendment Act, the Amendment Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 31-12-1982. It was in these circumstances, the tenant took an objection that the executing Court ceased to have jurisdiction to make an order for recovery of possession having regard to Section 21 of the Principal Act which inhibits any Court other than the Court under the Principal Act to pass an order for recovery of possession. The thrust of the argument was that Peramannur being situated within 3 kilometres of the City limits of Mangalore City, in terms of the Amendment Act, the executing Court could not make an order for recovery of possession in the execution proceedings pending before it. (Sri. K.R.D. Karanth, Learned Counsel for the decree-holder/plaintiff; disputes even the distance within which the said village is situated).

(3.) Sri U. L. Narayana Rao appearing for the Petitioner/ judgment-debtor placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Narayana Guin and ors. v. Niranjan Modak, AIR1985 SC 111 , 1984 (2 )SCALE924 , (1985 )1 SCC270 , [1985 ]2 SCR202 , 1985 (17 )UJ294 (SC ). In that case also somewhat similar situation arose. A suit for eviction under the Transfer of Property Act was filed to evict the tenant. The said suit was decreed, but was pending in appeal in the Appellate Court when the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, was extended to include the suit schedule property within its ambit. In that circumstance, it was held that the Appellate Court was divested of its jurisdiction, as the appeal was no more than a suit pending in the Appellate Court. Sri Narayana Rao comments that the same principle may be extended to the execution proceedings also.