N. D. VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT, Nawab Khan is the owner of a premises fully described in the interim order. The petitioner babu is in occupation of the said premises as a monthly tenant. He is liable to pay Rs. 85 as rent per month. ( 2 ) NAWAB Khan initiated a proceeding for recovery of possession of the premises on the ground that he bona fide and reasonably required the premises for his own use and occupation (under sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 the Act ). In the said proceeding (H. R. C. No. 7053/80 (New) HRC No. 713 of 1978 (Old), the learned VII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Civil Station, bangalore, made an interlocutory order under S. 29 (4) of the Act on 1. 10. 81 stopping all further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises within one month from the date of that order. The revision petition, in question, is directed against that order. ( 3 ) EARLIER to that order, in the very proceedings the learned Judge had made an order on 10. 7. 81, after hearing both sides, that the tenant was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1760 and that he should pay or deposit the same on or before 10. 8. 81. He can be said to have made that order under sub-sec. (3) of S. 29 of the Act. ( 4 ) WHILE seeking admission of this revision it was argued by the learned counsel for the tenant that in the matter of this interim order the court below had not complied with the requirements of sub-sec. (4) of s. 29, in that, it had not provided his client with an opportunity to showcause against stopping further proceedings. Apart from denying this averment the learned Counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, submitted that, without being admitted, the revision was liable to be rejected summarily, for the tenant not having paid to the landlord or deposited in the High Court the arrears of rent as determined by the Court below by its order dated 10. 7. 81 and also the arrears upto the date of filing ot this revision. 7. 81 and also the arrears upto the date of filing ot this revision. In response to this challenge made by the Counsel for the landlord the tenant's counsel contended that his client has deposited the rental arrears and the petition was not liable to be rejected on that account. He drew my attention to the deposit of rent maue in this Court on 2. 11. 81. On that day, it is a fact, that he has deposited a sum of Rs 1,760. ( 5 ) THE two questions that arise am (i) Is the petition liable to be rejected in limine for the tenant not depositing or paying the rental arrears as contemplated under sub-sec. (3) of S. 29 of the Act; and (ii) if not is this a fit matter for admission. ( 6 ) ELBORATING his submission on the first question counsel for the tenant says that the deposit made under Sec. 29 (3) of the Act was earlier to the office giving a number to this petition and until that number is given his client cannot be deemed to have preferred the revision, as that term "to prefer" as used in S. 29 (1) of the Act is required to be understood. ( 7 ) IN so far as revisions are concerned, under S. 29 the tenant has to either pay or deposit in the Court to which he intends preferring a revision and should go on making payments or deposit the rents that may subsequently become due until the determination of that proceeding. In the instant case we are concerned with the former condition. Before preferring this revision had he paid or deposited the rent is the question. Sub-sec. (1) of s. 29 says that no tenant against whom an order has been made by the Court on an application for eviction filed by his landlord under Sec. 21 shall be entitled to prefer a revision 'unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits in the High Court, as the case may be all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises up to the date o payment. . . . ' Counsel for the tenant says that his client can be said to have preferred the revision only when it was numbered by the office and not until then. . . . ' Counsel for the tenant says that his client can be said to have preferred the revision only when it was numbered by the office and not until then. In the instaat case the petition was registered and numbered on 4. 11. 81. The papers disclose that earlier to this the amount of Rs. 1760 had been deposited in this court. A careful reading of the High court of Karnataka Rules. 1959 dealing with the presentation and examination of papers (at Chapter XII) shows that the presentation of the papers at the office may not amount to preferring of an appeal, revision or application as the case may be. They can be said to have been preferred only after they are admitted to the register and numbered. Papers forming part of a memorandum of appeal, a revision, or application when presented to or filed in this High Court will first be checked and examined to find out as to whether the same have been filed or presented as required by the relevant rules (See "rules 1 to 17 under Chapter xii of the rules ). As provided in rule 18. "when all defects pointed out have been corrected or requisitions made have been complied with and all the papers are finally found to be in order, the appeal, the petition, or the other matter shall be admitted to the register and numbered". Only thereafter the matter will be posted before the Court for admission. ( 8 ) A revision petition can be said to have been duly "preferred" only when the petition is ripe for being placed before the Court for admission. If the tenant had paid or deposited the amount he was liable to pay or deposit as provided in S. 29 earlier to the revision having been admitted to the register and numbered, the requirement of S. 29 can be said to have been satisfied. In this view of the matter the submission of the counsel for the petitioner has to be sustained and the petition cannot be dismissed in limine as urged by the counsel for the respondent-landlord. In this view of the matter the submission of the counsel for the petitioner has to be sustained and the petition cannot be dismissed in limine as urged by the counsel for the respondent-landlord. ( 9 ) THE contention of the tenant's counsel is that the court below, before proceeding to stop all further proceedings and directing his client to put the landlord in possession of the premises, should have provided an opportunity to his client to show sufficient cause to the contrary as envisaged in sub-sec. (4) of S. 29 and it had not done so. On this aspect of the matter the tenant deserves a hearing on merits. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, the petition is admitted. ( 11 ) HAVING secured the papers from the court below, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties were also heard on merits. It is a fact that after its order dated 10. 7. 81 directing the tenant to deposit Rs. 1760 within one month, the tenant did not pay or deposit the rent. But then, had the Court, before stopping further proceedings, provided to the tenant an opportunity to show sufficient cause not to stop further proceedings? the learned Judge observes as follows"the respondent remained absent on subsequent dates and did not comply with the order of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner was heard on 28. 9. 81. Petitioner submitted that, in spite of several opportunities given to the respondent, the respondent has not paid the arrers as determined by this Court together with future rents as provided under law. Therefore, he sought for eviction of the respondent for default. In view of the circumstances stated above, since the respondent has not complied with the order of this court wherein sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent to pay off all the arrears besides, the respondent, though present on subsequent occasions, was not prepared to show-cause as to why he has not complied with the order nor has he tendered any amount. Under the circumstances, though nearing two months time was granted to the respondent, since the respondent has failed to comply with the order of this court, i think this is a fit case to stop all further proceedings. In the result I pass the following order: further proceedings in this case are stopped. Under the circumstances, though nearing two months time was granted to the respondent, since the respondent has failed to comply with the order of this court, i think this is a fit case to stop all further proceedings. In the result I pass the following order: further proceedings in this case are stopped. The respondent is hereby directed to deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner within one month from today. "i have carefully perused the order- sheet maintained by the court below in this proceeding. I was unable to find any order or direction made by the Court below having been recorded on any of the hearing dates, subsequent to 10. 7. 81 and earlier to 10. 8. 81 calling upon the tenant to show sufficient cause against stopping all further proceedings and making a consequential order. Before proceeding to stop further proceedings he should have left something in the records (not merely in the order) indicating that parlier to the pronouncement of the impugned order, he has specifically drawn the attention of the tenant and called upon him to show sufficient cuase for not stopping further proceeding. This having not been done by the learned Civil Judge, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the petition is allowed, the impugned order of the court below is hereby set aside and the matter involved is remitted to the court below for a fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observations made above. No costs. --- *** --- .