Karnataka High Court
K Y Habib And Sons vs Bharamappa Nagappa Waddar on 22 February, 2023
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
HRRP No. 18 of 2002
C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 18 OF 2002 (EVI)
C/W
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 85 OF 2002
IN HRRP NO. 18 OF 2002 (EVI)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S BHAGAWAN SAW MILLS
TORAVIHAKKAL, HUBLI,
BY ITS PARTNER
SRI HARILAL GOPAL PATEL
AGE: MAJOR, R/O TORAVIHAKKAL,
HUBBALLI
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
ROHAN
HADIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. HARILAL S/O GOPAL PATEL
T DHARWAD
Date:
2023.02.24
15:52:17
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUINESS,
+0530
R/O TORAVIHAKKAL, HUBBALLI.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2A. SMT. PARVATI BEN
W/O HARILAL GOPAL PATEL
AGE:50 YEARS,
R/O: TORVIHAKKAL
HUBBALLI
-2-
HRRP No. 18 of 2002
C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
2B GHANSHAM S/O HARILAL GOPAL PATEL
AGE:30 YEARS,
R/O: TORVIHAKKAL
HUBBALLI
2C JAYANTHILAL @ JITENDRA
S/O HARILAL GOPAL PATEL
AGE:27 YEARS,
R/O: TORVIHAKKAL
HUBBALLI
2D DEEPAK S/O HARILAL GOPAL PATEL
AGE:24 YEARS,
R/O: TORVIHAKKAL,
HUBBALLI.
3. AMRUTLAL S/O GOPAL PATEL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: TORVIHAKKAL, HUBBALLI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
3A SMT. HEMALATHA
D/O LATE SRI AMRUTHLAL
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.27, 28,
J.P.NAGAR, 8TH PHASE,
ADITYA NAGAR, KOTHANPUR MAIN ROAD,
BENAGALURU-560 062
3B KUMAR VIJAY
S/O LATE SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
R/AT: TORVIHAKKAL, HUBBALLI-580024
3C KUM. MEENAKSHI
D/O LATE SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
R/AT: TORVIHAKKAL, HUBBALLI-580024
-3-
HRRP No. 18 of 2002
C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
3D MISS. MITHA
D/O LATE SMT. SHARADA
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
R/AT: SHRI GANESH STONE INDUSTRIES,
R/AT: HALAGERI ROAD,
RANEBENNUR-581115.
3E KUM. KIRAN
S/O LATE SMT. SHARADA,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
R/AT: SHRI GANESH STONE INDUSTRIES,
R/AT: HALAGERI ROAD,
RANEBENNUR-581115.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE,
SRI.SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI.VIDYANAND V ARALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 BHARAMAPPA NAGAPPA WADDAR
DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1A AKKAMMA @ AKKAWWA W/O BHARAMAPPA WADDAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O: TORAVIHAKKAL, HUBLI.
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
1B HANAMAWWA W/O YELLAPPA ALAKUNTE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
R/O TORAVIHAKKAL, HUBBALLI.
1B(I) SRI.DEVENDRA S/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TORVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
-4-
HRRP No. 18 of 2002
C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
1B(II) SRI.NAGENDRA S/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORAVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
1B(III) SRI.SURENDRA S/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORAVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
1B(IV) SMT.BHAGYALAXMI D/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORAVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
1B(V) SRI.RAJENDRA S/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORAVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
2. M/S K.Y.HABIB SONS BY ITS PARTNER
SURESH KESUSA HABIB
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: SIDDVEERAPPANAPETY
DIVATEGALLI, HUBBALLI.
3. M/S JAVAHAR SAW MILLS
TORAVIHAKKAL, HUBBALLI,
SUMMONS BE SERVED ON SURESH
KESHUSA HABIB, R/O: SIDDVEERAPPANAPETH,
IVATEGALLI, HUBBALLI.
4. REVANNA @ RAMASA YELLAPPA HABIB
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: HUBLI
5. LAXMANSA GANAPATSA JADI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
5A. CHANDRABAI, W/O LAXMANSA JADI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: SAL ONI
HUBBALLI
-5-
HRRP No. 18 of 2002
C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
5B ASHOK S/O LAXMANSA JADI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SAL ONI
HUBBALLI
5C GANAPAT S/O LAXMANSA JADI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: SAL ONI
HUBBALLI
5D SMT. SUBHADRA MURARI MEHARVADE
AGE: MAJOR,HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: SAL ONI, HUBBALLI
5E SMT. SHANTABAI SHRINIVAS KALBURGI
AGE: MAJOR,OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: SAL ONI, HUBBALLI
...RESPONDENTS
R1B(1), R1B(3) AND R1B(4) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT
SHRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE, SHRI.S.S.BETURMATH,
SMT.PADMAJA, S.TADAPATRI, ADVOCATES FOR R1B(5)
R2,R3,R5(A), R5(C), R5(D) ARE SERVED
R4 AND R5(B)-PETITION DISMISSED
SHRI. C.S.NAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R5(C TO E)
THIS HRRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 CPC AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2001 PASSED IN RR NO.36/01 ON
THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, DHARWAD,
HUBLI, DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION AND
CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2001 PASSED IN HRC
NO.237/86 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN), HUBLI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.21(1)(a)
& (f) OF KRC ACT FOR EVICTION.
-6-
HRRP No. 18 of 2002
C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
IN HRRP NO. 85 OF 2002 (EVI)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S K.Y.HABIB AND SONS
BY ITS PARTNER SURESH KESUSA HABIBI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SIDDAVEERAPPANPET
DIVATE GALLI HUBLI
2. M/S JAWAHAR SAW MILLS
TORVI HALKKAL HUBLI,
SURESH KESUSA HABIBI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: SIDDAVEERAPPANPET
DIVATE GALLI, HUBLI
3. PREMANATH RAMASA HABIB
S/O LATE REVANASA ALIAS
RAMASA YELLAPP HABIB
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: TORVI HAKKAL,
HUBLI
4. LAXMANSA GANAPATSA JADI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
4A CHANDRABAI W/O LAXMANSA JADI
AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS,
OCC: NIL, R/O: SAL ONI, HUBLI
4B ASHOK LAXMANSA JADI
AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: SAL ONI, HUBLI
4C GANPATHI LAXMANSA JADI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SAL ONI
HUBLI
-7-
HRRP No. 18 of 2002
C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
4D SUBHADRA
W/O MURARI MEHARWADE
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC: NIL, R/O KAMARIPETH,
HUBLI
4E SHANTABAI W/O SHRINIVAS KALBURGI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: KAMARIPETH,
HUBLI
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ANGADI ASSOCIATES FOR P1 TO P3)
(BY SRI.C.S.NAGASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR P4(C-E)
(V/C/O DTD: 08.09.2004 ADVOCATE FOR P4(C-E)
AS LR'S OF DECEASED P4(A & B)
AND:
1. BHARAMAPPA NAGAPPA WADDAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1A AKKAMMA @ AKKAWWA
W/O BHARAMAPPA WADDAR
AGE: 60 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TORVI HAKKAL,
HUBLI
1B HANAMAWWA W/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORVI KAKKAL
HUBLI
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
1B(I) SRI.DEVENDRA S/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TORVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
-8-
HRRP No. 18 of 2002
C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
1B(II) SRI.NAGENDRA S/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORAVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
1B(III) SRI.SURENDRA S/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORAVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
1B(IV) SMT.BHAGYALAXMI D/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORAVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
1B(V) SRI.RAJENDRA S/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORAVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
1B(VI) SRI.RAVINDRA S/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORAVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
1B(VII) SRI.MAHENDRA S/O YALLAPPA ALAKUNTE
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTUE,
R/O: TORAVI HAKKAL, HUBLI-24
2 M/S BHAGAWAN SAW MILLS
TORAVIHAKKAL, HUBLI
BY ITS PARTNER
SRI BORALA S/O GOPAL PATEL
AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O: TORAVIHAKKAL
HUBBALLI
3 DHONNALA DAMJI PATEL
DECEASED BY LR
HARILAL S/O GOPAL PATEL
AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O: TORAVIHAKKAL
HUBBALLI
-9-
HRRP No. 18 of 2002
C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
4 AMRTUTSA GOPAL PATEL
AGE: 45 YEARS,
R/O TORAVIHAKKAL
HUBBALLI
...RESPONDENTS
R1(B)-IS LR OF DECEASED R1A
R1(B)(1), R1(B)(2),R1B(3), R1B(4) AND R1B(6)
ARE HELD SUFFICIENT
R1(B)(7)-DECEASED
SHRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE, SHRI.S.S.BETURMATH AND
SMT.PADMAJA S. TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1B(5)
SHRI.C.R.GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4
THIS HRRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 CPC AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 4.12.2001 PASSED IN RENT REVISION
NO.41/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. DIST. JUDGE,
DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBLI, DISMISSING THE REVISION
PETITION AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2001
PASSED IN HRC NO.237/86 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), HUBLI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 21(1)(a) AND (f) OF KRC ACT FOR EVICTION.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The present petitions are by the petitioner aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 04.12.2001 passed in Rent Revision Petition Nos.36/2001 and 41/2001 on the file of the I Addl.District Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revisional Court').
- 10 -
HRRP No. 18 of 2002C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
2. By the said order, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioners herein and confirmed the order dated 24.01.2001 passed in HRC No.237/1986 by the I Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court').
3. A short point that arises for consideration in these petitions is that, whether with the advent of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') enacted on 22.11.2001 and given effect to from 27.11.2001, 05.12.2001 and 31.12.2001, would the present revision petitions survive for consideration?
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the original land lord Sri.Bharmappa Nagappa Waddar initiated proceedings as petitioner in HRC No.237/1986 under Section 21(1)(a) and (f) of Karnataka Rent Control Act,1961 against (a) M/s K.Y.Habib and Sons, (b) M/s Jawahar Saw Mills
(c)Revanna @ Ramasa Yallappa Habib (d)Laxmanasa Ganapatasa Jadi (e)M/s.Bhagawan Saw Mill and
(f) Dhonnolal Damji Patel as respondents seeking their eviction from the non-residential premises comprising plot
- 11 -
HRRP No. 18 of 2002C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002 Nos.150, 153, 154 and 155 situated in Torvihakkal, Hubballi and the said petition came to be allowed, by order dated 24.01.2001, directing the aforesaid respondents to vacate and hand over possession of the premises to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order.
5. Aggrieved by the same, M/s. Bhagwan Saw Mill, Harilal S/o Gopal Patel and Amrutlal Gopal Patil filed Rent Revision in R.R.No.36/2001 and M/s K.Y.Habib and sons, M/s.Jawahar Saw Mills, Revanna @ Ramasa Yallappa Habib and the legal representatives of Laxmanasa Ganapatasa Jadi have filed a separate rent revision petition in R.R.No.41/2001, on the file of the Revisional Court. By order dated 04.12.2001 dismissing the said revision petitions, confirming the order dated 24.01.2001 passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 24.01.2001 passed in HRC No.237/1986 and order dated 04.12.2001 passed in RR No.36/2000, petitioners namely M/s. Bhagawan Saw Mills, Harilal Gopal Patel and Amrutlal Gopal have preferred the present revision petition in HRRP No.18/2002, while the petitioners namely
- 12 -
HRRP No. 18 of 2002C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002 M/s K.Y.Habib and sons, M/s Jawahar Saw Mills, Revansa Aliasa Ramasa Yallappa Habib, Laxmansa Ganapatsa Jadi represented by his legal representatives have preferred the HRRP No.85/2002.
6. Matter was heard and question which arose for consideration is with regard to the effect of repealing of Rent Control Act, 1961 by virtue of operation of Section 70 of the Rent Act 1999.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners insisted that by virtue of the amendment, the orders impugned in the present petitions would be of no avail, as the premises in question is in excess of 14 Sq.mtrs and the same is being used for non-residential purposes. Referring to Section 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act, learned counsel submits that the said premises has been expressly excluded from the application of the Rent Act 1999. Hence he submits that the respondents/original petitioner needs to be relegated to avail the remedy under general law. He relied upon the Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.P.R.Radhakrishna Setty Sons and Company v/s.
- 13 -
HRRP No. 18 of 2002C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002 A.N.Satish Babu, reported in 2004 (2) KCCR 1084, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court adverting to the fact of the case involved therein with regard to the measurement of the premises and also adverting to the effect of application of the Act on the premises having plinth area not exceeding 14 sq.mtrs for commercial purposes, has held that the Rent Act is not applicable.
8. Referring to the said Judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the non-application of the Rent Act, 1999 to the premises in question and in view of provisions of Section 70 of the Rent Act, the impugned orders would be of no avail. Hence seeks for appropriate orders to be passed.
9. Per contra, Sri.K.L.Patil learned counsel for the respondent-land lord relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Mercury Press and Others v/s Ameen Shacoor and others reported in ILR 2002 KAR 2304 and submits that by virtue of Section 70 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the order of eviction which is passed in the instant proceedings prior
- 14 -
HRRP No. 18 of 2002C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002 to coming into the Rent Act 1999, are saved and consequently the present Revision Petitions would stand abated. He submits that in view of the law settled down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case M/s. Mercury Press and Others (supra) it cannot be said that the order passed by the Rent Court Act by the revision order passed by the District Court is of no avail as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
11. There is no dispute of the fact that the original order in HRC No.237/1986 was passed on 24.01.2001 directing the respondents/petitioners herein to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises.
12. The second order in Rent Revision Petitions in RR No.36/2001 and RR No.41/2001 on the file of the Revisional Court was also passed 04.12.2001.
13. The Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 5 of the aforesaid Judgment in M/s. Mercury Press and Others (supra) has given details of the dates from which
- 15 -
HRRP No. 18 of 2002C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002 Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and application of certain provisions of the Act were given effect to, which is extracted hereunder for immediate reference.
"5. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, a temporary enactment which came into force on 31.12.1961 and extended from time to time was to remain in force upto and inclusive of 31ST day of December, 2001. It is replaced by Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 which received the assent of President on 22.11.2001 and published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 27.11.2001. Sections 1, 3 and 6 of the New Act came into force on 5.12.2001 and the remaining provisions of the new Act came into forced on 31.12.2001. The petition premises was governed by the old Act. The new Act is inapplicable to it in view of Section 2(3)(g) of the New Act which provides that nothing in the New Act shall apply to any premises used for non-residential purposes (excluding premises having a plinth area of not exceeding fourteen sq. mts. used for commercial purposes)."
14. The Division Bench of this Court analyzing the effect of Section 70 at paragraph No.19 of the said Judgment has held as under:
"19. Sub-section (3) of Section 70 of the New Act provides that on the repeal of the Old Act, the provisions of Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act applies in respect of the repeal, except in regard to cases and proceedings covered by Section 70(2), As a consequence any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act will also not be affected and it will be possible to enforce any such right or liability."
- 16 -
HRRP No. 18 of 2002C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
15. Thereafter at paragraph No.28 of the said Judgment, laid down the consequences and effect of the repeal of Rent Control Act, 1961 on the pending matters at various stages, which is extracted hereunder for immediate reference:
"28. We will now analyse the effect of the repealed Act, with reference to the provisions of Section 70 of the new Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act:
a) Matters pending in execution.-
Where an order of eviction has already been passed under the Old Act and is pending in execution, irrespective of whether the order was in regard to premises to which the New Act applies or not, such execution proceedings can be continued and disposed of by Executing Court as if the Old Act had not been repealed.
Orders of eviction passed under the Old Act which have become final and conclusive on or before 30.12.2001 in regard to which no execution was levied on or before 30.12.2001, can also be executed thereafter as if the Old Act has not been repealed.
b) Pending cases and proceedings under the Old Act, in regard to a premises to which the New Act applies.-
If any case or proceedings (other than execution proceedings) initiated under the Old Act is pending in regard to a premises to which the New Act applies, such case or proceeding either original or appellate or revisional, shall have to be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the New Act, though they were initiated under the Old Act.
- 17 -
HRRP No. 18 of 2002C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
c) Pending cases and proceedings under the Old Act in regard to a premises to which the New Act does not apply.-
(i) Any proceedings initiated under the Old Act, pending either before the Court of first instance, or Controller or Deputy Commissioner stand abated as from 31.12.2001;
(ii) Any revision proceedings initiated under Section 50 of the Old Act and pending before the District Court or High Court shall stand abated as from 31.12.2001. As a consequence any revision proceedings initiated under Section 50 of the Old Act, on or after 31.12.2001 will also stand abated as and when they are initiated;
(iii) The proceeding that get abated under Section 70(2)(c) are only proceedings initiated under the provisions of the old Act. If the proceedings pending is not initiated under the old Act (as for example a suit for recovery of rents under Section 26 of the CPC or a revision proceedings under Section 115 of the CPC), then obviously, Section70(2)(c) will not apply;
(iv) Any order of eviction passed by the Court of first instance under the Old Act prior to 31.12.2001 and which became final and conclusive on account of the abatement of revision proceedings, may however be amenable to challenge under writ jurisdiction in appropriate cases (the scope of interference under writ jurisdiction being however much narrower than the scope of interference under Section 50 of the Old Act)."
16. Further at paragraph No.32 of the aforesaid Judgment, has also clarified the remedy which is available to the aggrieved party, which is also extracted hereunder:
"32. In view of the above, we hold that this revision petition, which relates to a non-residential premises measuring more than 14 Sq.m. stands abated under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka
- 18 -HRRP No. 18 of 2002 C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002
Rent Act, 1999. We make it clear that such abatement will not come in the way of the petitioners-tenants seeking any other remedy if available to them in law, to challenge the order of eviction."
17. Thus from the aforesaid settled position of law and in view of the orders impugned in these revision petitions having been passed much prior to the Rent Act, 1999 coming into force, the present petitions stand abated by operation of law and the orders passed would have the legal effect, as if the Act, 1961 was not repealed.
18. It is further clarified that the original order in HRC No237/1986 dated 24.01.2001 and the second order namely the order dated 04.12.2001 passed in RR No.36/2001 and RR No.41/2001 shall remain intact as they were passed much prior to coming into force of the Rent Act, 1999.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners insisted that a clarification be made that notwithstanding the abatement of present petitions, the petitioners would be entitled to avail remedy under law. It goes without saying that even as clarified by the Division Bench in the
- 19 -
HRRP No. 18 of 2002C/W HRRP No. 85 of 2002 aforesaid case of M/s. Mercury Press and Others (supra) at paragraph No.32, petitioners would be entitled to seek any other remedy, f available to them, in accordance with law.
20. It is submitted that the petitioners have deposited certain amount before this Court, if so, the respondents-landlords are entitled to receive the same.
Registry is directed to release the same on proper identification of respondents.
In view of the aforesaid orders pending applications, if any, have become infructuous, requiring no consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2