Bhs Managing Committee Vs. Sringeri Mutt - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka rent control act, 1961 (karnataka act 22 of 1961) - section 2(7)(bb) as amended by the act no. 32 of 1994 -- eviction order passed before amendment act came into force on 18.5.1994 -- landlord being religious institution, not under state government held, not entitled to execute eviction order. - industrial disputes act (14 of 1947) sections 17-b & 25-f: [n. kumar & b. sreenivasa gowda, jj] termination of services of daily - the labour court after enquiry found that the workman had worked for 240 days and therefore his termination was contrary to section 25-f of the act. it also took note of the fact that there was a delay of 9 years in raising the dispute. therefore, it awarded reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of reference. held, even though his termination is held to be illegal, he cannot be ordered to be reinstated in the same post, is the law declared by the apex court. because his termination was illegal, he had worked for more than 240 days preceding the year of termination, he is entitled to compensation by way of damages which is called as monetary compensation. taking into consideration of the same, the single judge has fixed the compensation as rs.85,000/-therefore, it is just and proper.ordera.m. farooq, j.1. these revision petitions are filed under section 50 of the karnataka rent control act, is directed against the order dated 25.11.1995 in hrc no. 10284/91 on the file of the learned xiii additional small causes judge, mayo hall, bangalore.2. the revision petitioner in hrrp. 338/96 is the tenant against whom the respondent herein initiated eviction proceedings under section 21(1)(h) & (p) of the act. after trial, the lower court has passed an order of eviction against the revision petitioner under section 21(1)(h) of the act, rejecting the prayer made by the landlord under section 21(1)(p) of the act.3. hrrp no. 338/96 is filed by the tenant and hrrp no. 593/96 is filed by the landlord aggrieved by the order, rejecting his claim under section 21(1)(p) of the act.4. when the matter came up for admission it was submitted by sri. r.b. sadashivappa, learned counsel appearing for the tenant that by karnataka act no. 32/94 section 2 of karnataka rent control act, 1961 has been amended and the act was inapplicable to all the religious and charitable institutions. it is submitted that admittedly, the eviction petitioner is shringeri mutt, which is a religious institution and the petition schedule premises involved in the eviction proceedings belong to the said religious institution and therefore, the rent control court has no jurisdiction to pass any order of eviction, since its jurisdiction has been taken away by the above mentioned amendment.5. on the other hand, sri m.l dayananda kumar, learned counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that eviction petition has been filed by the landlord in the year 1991 and the amendment has come into force only on 18.5.1994 and therefore, the amendment will not be applicable to the pending proceedings.6. i am unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the landlord and the objection raised by sri r.b. sadashivappa, learned counsel appearing for the tenant has to be upheld. when a proceeding pending before the lower court, which is the rent control court under the act its jurisdiction has been taken away by virtue of the amendment. the amendment taking away its jurisdiction came into force on 18.5.94. from the said date the lower court could not have passed an order in a proceedings instituted by a religious or charitable institution in view of the amendment act. the impugned order has been passed on 25111.94 by which time the amended act has already come into force. as held by this court in sha chunnilal shoanraj v. t. gurushanthappa, 1972(1) klj p 327, when the amended provision of an act comes into force during the pendency of the proceeding, it is the amended provision that has to be applied and not the old provision which has ceases to exist.7. in view of the above mentioned division bench judgment of this court, it has to be held that the court below had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on 25.11.94 when the amended act has already come into force on 18.5.1994, taking away the jurisdiction of the lower court. in view of the above said reasoning this revision petition has to be allowed and the impugned order has to be set aside and the eviction order passed against the revision petitioner in hrrp 338/96 has to be set aside and the revision petition has to be allowed.8. accordingly, hrrp 338/96 is allowed and hrrp 593/96 is dismissed and hrc no. 10284/91 on the file of the xiii additional small causes judge is dismissed as not maintainable.

Judgment:
ORDER

A.M. Farooq, J.

1. These revision petitions are filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, is directed against the order dated 25.11.1995 in HRC No. 10284/91 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore.

2. The revision petitioner in HRRP. 338/96 is the tenant against whom the respondent herein initiated eviction proceedings under Section 21(1)(h) & (p) of the Act. After trial, the Lower Court has passed an order of eviction against the revision petitioner under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act, rejecting the prayer made by the landlord under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act.

3. HRRP No. 338/96 is filed by the tenant and HRRP No. 593/96 is filed by the landlord aggrieved by the order, rejecting his claim under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act.

4. When the matter came up for admission it was submitted by Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, Learned Counsel appearing for the tenant that by Karnataka Act No. 32/94 Section 2 of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 has been amended and the Act was inapplicable to all the religious and charitable institutions. It is submitted that admittedly, the eviction petitioner is Shringeri Mutt, which is a religious institution and the petition schedule premises involved in the eviction proceedings belong to the said religious institution and therefore, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order of eviction, since its jurisdiction has been taken away by the above mentioned amendment.

5. On the other hand, Sri M.L Dayananda Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that eviction petition has been filed by the landlord in the year 1991 and the amendment has come into force only on 18.5.1994 and therefore, the amendment will not be applicable to the pending proceedings.

6. I am unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the landlord and the objection raised by Sri R.B. Sadashivappa, Learned Counsel appearing for the tenant has to be upheld. When a proceeding pending before the Lower Court, which is the Rent Control Court under the Act its jurisdiction has been taken away by virtue of the amendment. The amendment taking away its jurisdiction came into force on 18.5.94. From the said date the Lower Court could not have passed an order in a proceedings instituted by a religious or charitable institution in view of the amendment Act. The impugned order has been passed on 25111.94 by which time the amended Act has already come into force. As held by this Court in SHA CHUNNILAL SHOANRAJ v. T. GURUSHANTHAPPA, 1972(1) KLJ p 327, when the amended provision of an Act comes into force during the pendency of the proceeding, it is the amended provision that has to be applied and not the old provision which has ceases to exist.

7. In view of the above mentioned Division Bench judgment of this Court, it has to be held that the Court below had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on 25.11.94 when the amended Act has already come into force on 18.5.1994, taking away the jurisdiction of the Lower Court. In view of the above said reasoning this revision petition has to be allowed and the impugned order has to be set aside and the eviction order passed against the revision petitioner in HRRP 338/96 has to be set aside and the revision petition has to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, HRRP 338/96 is allowed and HRRP 593/96 is dismissed and HRC No. 10284/91 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge is dismissed as not maintainable.