L.M. Sharma and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.
1. The tenant has appealed by special leave challenging the affirming decisions of the High Court sustaining his eviction.
2. The arrears as stated in the application for eviction were confined to the period between October 28, 1960 and December 15, 1961 amounting to Rs 346 and the application instituted on September 5, 1962 was stated to be under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Defence plea was that a sum of Rs 250 had been paid towards the municipal taxes for the premises in question by the tenant on January 31, 1962 and this was available to be adjusted against rent. The trial Judge did not allow eviction but made an order for recovery of the arrears. The landlord as also the tenant appealed against the decision of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeals, the Mysore Civil Courts Act came into force and under its provisions, pending matters were transferred from the court of the District Judge to the Civil Judge entitled to dispose of appeals. The Civil Judge having decided against the tenant, the tenant took the matter before the High Court and contended that the appeal was under Section 29 of the Bombay Act and when directed against the original order lay to the District Judge. In view of such specific provision in the Bombay Act, the appeals could not have been transferred to any other authority subordinate to the District Judge for final disposal on the basis of the Mysore Act. The High Court accepted this plea and vacated the appellate judgment and remitted the matter to the District Judge for disposal. When the tenant again lost before the District Judge, he carried two revisions to the High Court.
3. In support to the tenant's revisions, it was contended before the High Court that the Karnataka Rent Control Act came into force in Belgam area with effect from December 31, 1961 and with such Act coming into force, the Bombay Rent Control Act stood repealed from that area. The eviction proceedings were taken on September 5, 1962, i.e., more than eight months after the Karnataka Act had come into force. As such, the Bombay Act had no more application and eviction could not be ordered by applying the provisions of the Bombay Act. It is not disputed before us that the provisions in regard to eviction under the Bombay Act and the Karnataka Act are substantially different. If the Karnataka Act applied, unless there was default in the matter of payment of rent for six months and more, eviction could not be ordered while the Bombay Act has no such provision. The finding that a sum of Rs 250 had been paid by the tenant on January 31, 1962 towards municipal taxes is no more in dispute. That being the position, if the Karnataka Act applied on the date of the commencement of proceedings, the tenant would not have been in default in respect of payment of rent for more than six months.
4. Authorities are many in support of the position that the law to be applied would be the one that would be in force on the date when the proceedings are taken, unless during the pendency of the proceedings the law is specifically changed. In the instant case, the Karnataka Rent Control Act being the law in force on September 5, 1962, the disposal of the proceedings should have been regulated in terms of that Act and the rights of parties should have been worked out on the basis of provisions contained therein. This aspect has not been examined in the courts below. It has, therefore, become necessary to remit the matter to the High Court.
5. We allow the appeal, vacate the judgment of the High Court and direct that the civil revisions before the High Court shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with law. The High Court shall proceed on the basis that the Karnataka Rent Control Act applied to the proceedings. Costs shall abide the event.