SADIQ SAB Vs. AKHILANDAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri D.L.N. Rao, the learned Advocate, had appeared on behalf of the Caveator in R.S.A. No. 659 of 1984 on 21-8-1984. He undertook to appear for respondents in R.S.A. Nos. 660 and 661 of 1984 also. The Court after recording this under-taking, directed the office to show his name as appearing for the respondents in R.S.A. Nos. 660 and 661 of 1984 and further directed to post the said two appeals with R.S.A. No. 659 of 1984 and granted an order of stay in all the three appeals. Sri. D.L.N. Rao now states that he has filed his Vakalat on behalf of respondent in R.A.S. Nos. 660 and 661 of 1984.

(2.) Sri K.S. Savanur, appearing on behalf of the appellants in these matters and Sri D.L.N. Rao, requested that in view of the substantial question involved in these appeals being common and further in view of the fact that the Supreme Court as in Lakshmi Narayan Guin - - Niranjan Modak, settled the said question, these appeals be heard for final disposal. Hence arguments have been heard.

(3.) The Respondent in these three appeals is the same. She filed O.S.No. 150/1981, O.S. 149 of l981 and O.S.No. 151 of 1981 for ejectment of the appellants from the premises, concerned as the Karnataka Rent Control Act, was not 1. AIR1985 SC 111 , 1984 (2 )SCALE924 , (1985 )1 SCC270 , [1985 ]2 SCR202 , 1985 (17 )UJ294 (SC ) applicable at that time. A common judgment was passed by the Principal Munsiff, Hospet on 1-10-1983 decreeing the suits. The present appellants preferred Regular Appeal No. 37, Regular Appeal No. 36 and Regular Appeal No. 38 of l983 respectively against the said Judgment and decree in the Court of the Civil Judge, Hospet. During the pendency of the appeals, the Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1983 amending the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, came into force with effect from 31st Dec. 1982. By virtue of the amendment Schedule II referred to under Section 2(3) of the Act was also amended. Because of this amendment Parts IV and V of the Act were made applicable to the areas within the limits of the Town Municipalities also. Part V of the Act commences with Section 21 of the Act, which provides protection to tenants against eviction. This subsequent change in the law led to an argument before the Civil Judge that Section 21 not being retrospective in its operation, the Civil Courts continued to have jurisdiction to deal with such suits and pass decrees for eviction particularly when the suits had been instituted when Parts IV and V of the Act were not made applicable to such areas.