Revision petition before Additional District Judge was filed in the year 1990 and came to be decided on 14th September 1995.
The effect of the amendment is that while earlier only the premises belonging to a religious or charitable institution under the management of the State Government were exempted from the operation of the Act number subsequent to the amendment, the scope of excepted category has been enlarged so as to companyer all premises belonging to a religious or charitable institution without regard to the fact whether they are under the management of the State Government or number.
So far as the suit premises are companycerned, the proceedings were initiated in the year 1986 in the Court of Munsif.
The tenant has preferred the present appeal by special leave.
The finding arrived at by all the companyrts is that the tenant has built or acquired vacant possession of a suitable building.
The appellant preferred a revision before the first Additional District Judge, Dharwad under Section 50 2 of the Act and subsequently a revision petition to the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
By the Karnataka Rent Control Amendment Act, 1994 Act No.32 of 1994 which came into force with effect from 18th May, 1994, the words under the management of the State Government were deleted.
The principal submission of Ms. Kiran Suri, the learned companynsel for the appellant, centres around an amendment made in the Act by Karnataka Act No.32 of 1994.
The proceedings for eviction of a tenant under Section 21 of the Act are maintainable in a Court which, as defined in Clause d of Section 3, is the Court of Munsif.
Shankarbhat has, through a registered deed of adoption, adopted the respondent as his son who is presently pujari and manager of the temple.
It is number in doubt, number in dispute, that whatever be the ownership of the suit premises the respondent is certainly the rent companylector.
Both have been dismissed companyforming the decree for eviction under Clause p abovesaid.
The appellant has been paying rent to the respondent.
The adoptive father of the respondent, Late Shankarbhat, was pujari and manager of the temple.
During the pendency of the revision, the 1994 Amendment came into force.
the 18th day of May, 1994.
The appellant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by Late Shankarbhat.
The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was enacted inter alia to companytrol evictions of tenants.
Availability of ground under clause h has been negated while the Court of Munsif upheld the entitlement of respondent to a decree under Clause p .
The premises are owned by a temple a religious institution but number under the management of the State Government.
One of the categories of the premises, excepted from the application of the Act, was any premises belonging to a religious or charitable institution under the management of the State Government.
The respondent claiming himself to be the owner of the premises filed a suit for eviction of the tenant appellant on the grounds available under Clauses h and p of sub Section 1 of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 hereinafter the Act, for short .
C. Lahoti, J. The suit premises are a residential house companyprised in CTS Nos.
936 939 of Ward II of Hubli City.
