JUDGMENT
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.
1. This revision petition is by the petitioner-tenant in R.R. No. 15 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Mysore, aggrieved by the order dated 25-8-2003 dismissing the I.A. Nos. V to VII filed under Order 22, Rule 4, Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioner-tenant.
2. Heard Mr. KV. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Mr. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. During the pendency of the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Mysore in R.R. No. 15 of 2000 the landlord died. The legal representatives of the deceased landlord, respondent in R.R. No. 15 of 2000 have filed necessary application to come on record. The said application was opposed by the petitioner-tenant. The First Revisional Court dismissed as withdrawn the application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased landlord to come on record. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant himself filed I.A. Nos. V to VII as stated supra. The said applications were opposed by the legal representatives of the deceased respondent-landlord on the ground that they are barred by limitation. The Lower Court upholding the objections filed by the legal representatives of the deceased landlord dismissed I.A. Nos. V to VII. Hence, the present revision petition.
4. Therefore, the question that arises for my consideration is whether the impugned order is legal and valid?
5. The Rent Act is a special enactment. When a specific provision is provided under a special enactment, the Courts are bound by the provisions Contained under the special enactment than the provisions contained under General Law. There is a specific provision under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (‘Act’ for short) regarding the proceedings by or against the legal representatives in terms of Section 51. It reads as follows:
“Section 51, Proceedings by or against legal representatives.–(1) Any application made, appeal preferred, or proceeding taken under this Act by or against any person, may, in the event of his death be continued by or against his legal representative.
(2) Where any application, appeal or other proceeding would have been made, preferred or taken under this Act by or against any person such application, appeal or other proceeding may, in the event of his death, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representative”.
By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 66 of the Act, the Karnataka Rent Rules, 2001 (‘Rules’ for short) came to be made by the Government of Karnataka.
Rule 33 of the Karnataka Rent Rules, 2001 states that ‘in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided for in the Act or by these Rules, the Court shall as far as possible be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’.
(emphasis supplied)
In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the rational of the rule that where a general enactment covers a situation for which specific provision is made in a specific enactment, it is to be presumed that the situation is intended to be dealt with by the specific provision rather than the general provision, has been explained succinctly in the following terms:
“The rule that general provisions should yield to specific provisions is not an arbitrary principle made by lawyers and Judges but springs from the common understanding of men and women that when the same person gives two directions, one covering a large number of matters in general and another to only some of them, his intention is that these latter directions should prevail as regards these, while as regards all the rest the earlier direction should have effect”.
6. A combined reading of Section 51 of the Act and the Rule 33 would leave no scope for doubt that it is only the provisions of the special enactment that are applicable to the present proceedings. Section 51 does not stipulate any outer limit within which a L.R. application is required to be filed. On the facts of this case, the legal representatives of the deceased landlord themselves had filed an application to come on record. The Court should have considered that application in favour of the legal representatives despite objections filed by the tenant as having regard to Section 51 of the Act either of the party to the proceedings was entitled to make an application. Unfortunately, the Lower Court has overlooked the said provision contained in the Rent Act.
7. Notwithstanding the said error committed by the Lower Court, it has again committed the same mistake when an application was filed by the tenant himself and the same was opposed by the legal representatives of the deceased landlord. Whatever be the objections filed by the parties, the Lower Court should have considered the objections having regard to the past conduct of the parties. The entire approach of the Lower Court culminating in passing the impugned order is improper and the same is unsustainable in law.
8. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the applications filed to bring the legal representatives are allowed though not under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but under Section 51 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The petitioner-tenant shall bring the legal representatives of the deceased landlord on record by amending the cause-title by 30th of this month; on which date both parties are directed to appear before the Lower Court. The Lower Court is directed to dispose of the revision petition by the end of November 2003 on merits.
9. The respondents herein are permitted to withdraw the rents deposited in this revision petition, subject to further orders, if any.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the Lower Court forthwith.