SHIVA RAO Vs. CECILIA PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question, which arises for decision in this Revision Petition, is whether the prohibition under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') imposed on a Court that no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made in favour of the landlord against the tenant, prohibits such Court from executing its order or decree made to the same effect and became final, before coming into force of that provision respecting the area where the premises is situated.

(2.) The material facts, which have formed the basis for the petitioners raising the above question for the first time in this Court, are : As far back as in the year 1962, Respondents 1 to 6 instituted in the Court of Munsiff at Mangalore, a suit for recovery of possession of a parcel of non-agricultural land from the petitioners, who were tenants thereof. A decree for recovery of possession was ultimately made in that suit by that Court on 306-1972 in accordance with the directions in the Judgment rendered by this Court in the year 1970 when the matter had been brought up before it in a regular second appeal. In the year 1980, that decree was sought to be executed before the same Court in Execution Case No. 70/1980, on its file. During the pendency of that execution case, the provisions in Parts IV and V of the Act, it was undisputed, came into operation in the area of Paduvu village where the land concerned in the decree under execution, is situated. However, by the order now under revision made by the said executing Court in the execution proceeding, it has directed the petitioners (Judgment Debtors) to deliver possession of the land to the Respondents (Decree Holders) in the terms of the decree under execution.

(3.) Shri K.R.D. Karanth, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the executing Court ('Court below') by the order under revision should not have directed the petitioners to deliver to the Respondents possession of the land concerned in its decree while purporting to execute that decree, after coming into force of the provisions in Parts IV and V respecting the area where that land was situate. He elaborated his contention stating that when the land concerned in the decree was a premises covered by sub-section (1) of Section 21 in Part IV of the Act, the Court below should have seen that the prohibition contained in that sub-section to the effect that no order or decree for recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant, prohibited it from ordering delivery of possession of the land from the petitioners-tenants. He sought to support the said contention by relying upon a decision of this Court in Manjulu Ramakrishna Naik - v. - Umesh Sridhar 1977 (1) KLJ 445 and another decision of the Supreme Court in Mani Subrat Jain vs. Raja Ram Vohra