R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners herein and one Channeshaiah, filed five eviction petitions in HRC Nos. 71, 103, 85, 87 and 73 of 1987, on the file of the principal Munsiff, Shimoga, against the respondents in these five revision petitions under clauses (a) and (j) of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'act' ). ( 2 ) THE respondent in each of these petitions resisted the said petitions, inter alia, on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and that they were the tenants of jadeveramath and were paying the rents to the said Math. ( 3 ) AFTER evidence, the Trial Court allowed the eviction petitions under clauses (a) and (j) by a common order dated 4-3-1996, after holding that the petitioners had proved the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenants, with each of the respondents. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the respective respondent in the said five eviction petitions, filed revision petitions under Section 50 (2) of the Act in hrc RP Nos. 16 of 1996, 31 of 1996, 19 of 1996, 26 of 1996 and 17 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Shimoga and sought interim stay of execution of the orders of eviction. The petitioners who had lodged caveats, opposed grant of stay. The revisional Court granted ad interim stay of eviction pending consideration of the applications for stay. Thereafter, the applications for stay in the said revision petitions were heard. The tenants sought extension of stay of the orders of eviction till disposal of the revision petitions. The petitioners herein (who were the respondents before the District Court) opposed the extension of stay, on the ground that the revision petitions were not maintainable, as they had been filed without depositing the rents up-to-date, as required under Section 29 (1) of the Act. The District Court passed the impugned orders dated 21-8-1997 allowing the applications for stay, extending the interim stay till the disposal of the revision petitions. It held that once a revision petition is registered, it had to be disposed of on merits and could not be dismissed as not maintainable, even if there was non-compliance with Section 29 (1), by relying on the decision of the Supreme court in Hukumchand Amolikchand Longde v Madhava Balaji Potdar. It held that once a revision petition is registered, it had to be disposed of on merits and could not be dismissed as not maintainable, even if there was non-compliance with Section 29 (1), by relying on the decision of the Supreme court in Hukumchand Amolikchand Longde v Madhava Balaji Potdar. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these petitions under section 115 of the CPC. The petitioners contend that in view of the finding given by the Trial Court that the jural relationship of landlord and the tenant was proved, the tenants could not, without depositing the rents up-to-date, either prefer or prosecute the revision petitions under Section 50 (2), having regard to the provisions of Section 29 (1) and the revisional Court ought to have straightaway rejected the petitions. The petitioners herein also contended that registration of a revision petition filed under Section 50 (2), is not a bar to the revisional Court to examine whether the petitioner in a petition under Section 50 (2), had complied with Section 29 (1) of the Act or not, and pass appropriate consequential orders. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that once a revision petition filed under Section 50 is registered by the District Court or admitted by the High Court, it could not subsequently be dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of non-deposit of rent upto the date of filing the revision petition. He contended that in a revision petition registered under Section 50 (2) or admitted under section 50 (1), relief under Section 29 could be granted only if the landlord files an application under Section 29 (1) of the Act, alleging arrears of rent and the revisional Court holds that the revision petitioner is in arrears; and that thereafter the tenant should be given an opportunity to show cause for non-payment and only if the revisional Court is not satisfied with the cause shown, an order could be passed under Section 29 (4 ). He further contended that once a revision petition is registered under Section 50 (2) or admitted under Section 50 (1), interim stay of the order under revision should follow, as a matter of course, as without stay, the revision petition would become infructuous. He further contended that once a revision petition is registered under Section 50 (2) or admitted under Section 50 (1), interim stay of the order under revision should follow, as a matter of course, as without stay, the revision petition would become infructuous. He therefore submitted that the orders granting stay were not open to challenge, and the only remedy open to the petitioners herein was to file an application under Section 29 (1) of the Act, in each case. ( 7 ) IN view of the above contentions, the following two points arise for decision: (I) Whether admission of a revision petition filed under Section 50 (1) or registration of a revision petition filed under Section 50 (2) bars the revisional Court from considering the question as to whether the revision petitioner has paid or deposited rents up-to-date, before preferring the revision petition; and (II) Where the revision petitioner does not pay or deposit the rents up-to-date, before preferring the revision petition, as required under Section 29 (1), whether the revision should be dismissed as not maintainable, without considering whether the tenant has shown sufficient cause against rejection. Let me refer to the provision of Section 29 of the Act and the decisions interpreting Section 29, before considering the two questions. ( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 29 which requires deposit and payment of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction, or for preferring or prosecuting any revision arising therefrom, is extracted below:"no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 21, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Court under that section or to prefer or prosecute a revision petition under Section 50 against an order made by the Court on application under Section 21, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Court or the district Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises upto the date of payment or deposits and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises at the rate at which it was paid or agreed to be paid, until the termination of the proceedings before the Court or the District Judge or the High court, as the case may be". 8. 8. 1 Sub-section (2) of Section 29 requires that the deposit of rent under sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed and shall be accompanied by prescribed process fee for serving the notice of deposit on the landlord. Rule 9 of the Karnataka Rent control Rules, 1961, prescribes the time within which a deposit of rent under sub-section (1) of Section 29 may be made, as 15 days of the last date fixed in the agreement of tenancy for payment of rent or in the absence of such agreement, fifteen days from the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. 8. 2 Sub-section (3) of Section 29, provides that where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1), the Court shall on an application made either by the tenant or the landlord and after making such enquiry as it deems necessary, determine summarily the rent to be so paid or deposited. 8. 3 Sub-section (4) of Section 29 provides that if any tenant fails to so pay or deposit the rent, the Court, the District Court or the High Court, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises, or dismiss the revision petition, as the case may be. ( 9 ) A Court dealing with eviction proceedings under the Act gets jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction under the proviso to Section 21 (1) or to pass an order stopping proceedings and direct delivery of possession, under Section 29 (4), only if the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted or established. When the respondent in an eviction petition denies the relationship of landlord and tenant between the eviction petitioner and himself, the Rent Court will have to consider and decide the question of tenancy. As this is a question of fact, requiring oral evidence, the issue need not be tried as a preliminary issue, but can be decided along with other issues. As this is a question of fact, requiring oral evidence, the issue need not be tried as a preliminary issue, but can be decided along with other issues. However, when the landlord files an application under Section 29, alleging non-payment of rent and the tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Court will have to decide the question of jural relationship before it can pass an order for payment of rents. The Court, may record evidence on the question of jural relationship as a preliminary issue or consider the said question as also the question of arrears together and pass a common order on both questions. 9. 1 In Abdul Rasheed v Syed Mohamed, this Court held that Section 29 contemplates four different stages for passing an order under sub-sec-tion (4): (i) determination of arrears; (ii) giving time to the tenant to pay such arrears; (iii) if default is committed by the tenant, then giving an opportunity to the tenant to show cause against stopping further proceedings and ordering eviction, or rejecting the revision petition; and (iv) ordering that the proceedings be stopped and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession or rejecting the revision petition, if the tenant fails to show cause. This Court also held that a composite order determining the arrears with a direction that the tenant shall be evicted if he failed to pay the amount within the specified time, violated the provisions of Section 29 (1) and (4 ). 9. 2 In Medical Research Laboratory Private Limited v Ajith K. C. , a division Bench of this Court held that the words 'against an order made by the Court on an application under Section 21' should be understood as 'against any order made by the Trial Court on an application under section 21 of the Act'. Therefore, Section 29 (1) requires a tenant to pay all arrears of rents due till the date of filing of the revision petition, not only in revision petitions against final orders of eviction passed under section 21, but also in revision petitions filed against orders made on applications under Section 29. ( 10 ) LET me refer to a few relevant cases dealing with Section 29, having a bearing on its applicability to revision petitions under Section 50 of the Act. 10. ( 10 ) LET me refer to a few relevant cases dealing with Section 29, having a bearing on its applicability to revision petitions under Section 50 of the Act. 10. 1 The object of Section 29 (4) was explained by this Court in thomas Veigas v Leelavathi alias Rajan Bai, as follows:"the object of the provisions of Section 29, in my opinion, is to secure prompt payment of rent by the tenants to the landlord during the pendency of the proceedings for eviction under the Act, and to discountenance any attempt on the part of tenants from stopping payment. A tenant, who wants to avail the benefits of the act, is placed under an obligation to perform his part of the duty namely, the prompt payment of rent within the time allowed by law. If the tenant commits default, the statute has provided, by way of penalty, for the forfeiture of the protection afforded by the act to the tenant; but power is conferred on the Court to relieve against the forfeiture if the tenant shows 'sufficient cause', and that power has to be exercised by the Court on taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The clause 'unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary is not in regard to the failure to pay or deposit the rent, but has reference to the subsequent clause viz. , to stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises". (emphasis supplied) 10. 2 In Shiva v B. Devanna, a Division Bench of this Court held:"deposit or payment of rent should be made before the presentation of a revision petition under Section 50 of the Act by a tenant against an order made under Section 21. The requirement of deposit of arrears of rent in terms of Section 29 (1) is mandatory and a tenant who fails to fulfil the said statutory requirement has no right to contest an eviction petition and is not entitled to prefer a revision petition under Section 50 of the Act against an eviction order. The requirement of deposit of arrears of rent in terms of Section 29 (1) is mandatory and a tenant who fails to fulfil the said statutory requirement has no right to contest an eviction petition and is not entitled to prefer a revision petition under Section 50 of the Act against an eviction order. Except to the extent of protection given in Section 29 (4) of the act and subject to the right to deposit only such arrears of rent as determined summarily by the Court under sub-section (3) of section 29, the consequence of non-compliance of Section 29 (1) by a tenant would be he stands deprived of his right to contest an eviction petition or to prefer a revision petition against an order of eviction and he has to suffer an order of eviction". (emphasis supplied)10. 3 In Syed Abdul Wadood v State of Karnataka2, another Division bench of this Court while examining the scope and validity of Sectiona 29, held: "the object of Section 29 is to ensure payment of rent to the landlord. The statutory protection given to the tenant by the Act, is made dependent on the tenant paying the rent promptly, unless, sufficient cause could be shown by him against the eviction order under this provision. . . . Scope of Section 29 is to compel the tenant to discharge his basic obligation in the matter of paying the rent. Section 29 provides for the withdrawal of the statutory protection given to the tenant under Section 21, whenever, it is found that the tenant has acted inequitably arbitrarily or capriciously, in the matter of discharging this basic obligation. . . . Section 29 has nowhere vested an arbitrary power in the Court. It has vested a discretionary power in the Court under Section 29 (4 ). If a defaulting tenant can show sufficient cause against stoppage of the main proceedings and an order of immediate eviction, Court would not stop further proceedings and would not order eviction. The proof of such sufficient cause, enables the tenant to fight out the main proceedings and statutory benefits will be available to him. . . . . ". (emphasis supplied)10. The proof of such sufficient cause, enables the tenant to fight out the main proceedings and statutory benefits will be available to him. . . . . ". (emphasis supplied)10. 4 In Tippanna Laxman Waghmode (deceased) by L. Rs v godavaribai and Others, this Court held: "as per Section 29 (1) of the Act a tenant cannot prefer or prosecute a revision petition without making a deposit of the arrears of rent or without making the payment of rents where the proceedings are pending. However, under Section 29 (4) the Court cannot dismiss the revision petition in case the tenant shows sufficient cause against such the rent is not deposited prior to the filing of the revision petition, the resultant position will be quite arbitrary. There may be very genuine case wherein a tenant could not make the deposit in spite of his best efforts for whatever reason and if such a tenant is to be non-suited by the dismissal of his revision petition as not maintainable, the forum created by the Legislature to consider the case on merits will be denied to such a tenant. That cannot be the intention of the Legislature at all. Language of section 29 (4) in no way negatives the applicability of the consideration of sufficiency of the cause even when the tenant is not able to deposit the rent or pay the same before or at the time of filing the revision petition. No doubt the burden will be entirely on the tenant to establish the insufficiency of the cause". (emphasis supplied) ( 11 ) COMPLIANCE with Section 29 is ensured in an eviction proceedings initiated under any proviso to Section 21 (1), in the following manner. (A) If the tenant fails to pay or deposit the rents up-to-date, the landlord initiates action against the tenant, by filing an application under Section 29. (B) If the tenant admits the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rate of rent and the period for which the rent is due as claimed by the landlord, then there will be no enquiry under sub-section (3 ). The Court will consider whether there is sufficient cause for not stopping further proceedings and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession, if sufficient cause is not shown. (C) If there is any dispute in regard to relationship, there shall be an enquiry to decide the question. The Court will consider whether there is sufficient cause for not stopping further proceedings and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession, if sufficient cause is not shown. (C) If there is any dispute in regard to relationship, there shall be an enquiry to decide the question. If there is any dispute in regard to the rate of rent and/or the period for which the rent is due, the Court will hold an enquiry under Section 29 (3 ). These two enquiries may be held separately or together. (D) If the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established, the eviction petition and the application under Section 29 will be dismissed. If the relationship of landlord-tenant is not disputed, or if disputed, the court holds that such relationship is proved, then the Court will consider and decide the rate of rent and the amount of rent due as arrears. On such determination, the Court will grant a reasonable time (which is normally be a month) to the tenant to pay the arrears with a further direction to pay the rents regularly in future. (E) If the tenant pays the arrears as determined within the time stipulated, the eviction proceedings will be continued on merits. If the tenant continues to pay the rents thereafter regularly, there will be no further order under Section 29. (F) If the tenant fails to deposit the arrears, determined by the Court, or having paid such arrears, commits default in paying the rents subsequent to the date of the order determining the arrears, the Court will, either suo motu or on an application filed by the landlord, call upon the tenant to show cause why further proceedings should not be stopped and he should not be directed to deliver vacant possession to the landlord, under Section 29 (4 ). (G) If no cause is shown, or if the cause shown is not sufficient or satisfactory, the Court will/shall proceed to pass an order stopping further proceedings and directing the tenant to deliver up vacant possession to the landlord under Section 29 (4 ). (H) If sufficient cause is shown against stopping further proceedings and passing an order of eviction, the Court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders depending on the facts of each case. (H) If sufficient cause is shown against stopping further proceedings and passing an order of eviction, the Court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders depending on the facts of each case. It may either proceed with the eviction petition on merits or extend the time for payment of the amount due or pass other suitable orders. ( 12 ) THE requirement of Section 29 is no less rigorous, in regard to revision petitions, on account of the fact that the revision petitioner/tenant is required to pay rents regularly, not only during the pendency of the revision petition, but is required to pay or deposit the entire arrears up-to-date, before preferring the revision petition. The applicability and enforcement of Section 29 to proceedings in revision is as follows: (A) A tenant or respondent in an eviction petition will not be entitled to prefer or prosecute a revision petition either under Section 50 (1) or section 50 (2) without paying or depositing rents up-to-date. He should make an endorsement or statement that he has paid or deposited the rents up-to-date in the revision petition. (Note: Where there is determination in regard to rate of rent or arrears due during the eviction proceedings, the deposit/payment shall be on that basis. Where there was no occasion for the Trial Court to determine of rate of rent or the period for which rent is due, during the course of the eviction proceedings, the deposit/payment shall be at the rate and for the period as admitted to be due by the tenant ). (B) A tenant who files a revision against an order under Section 29 challenging the determination of the rate of rent or the quantum of arrears, or a respondent in an eviction petition, who disputes the relationship of landlord and tenant, will also have to deposit the entire arrears, as determined by the Trial Court, if he wants to challenge the order determining the jural relationship or an order under Section 29. The revision petitioner may however state that they are making the deposit under protest and request the Court not to permit the landlord or the petitioner in the eviction petition to withdraw the disputed amount, pending decision in the revision proceedings. The revision petitioner may however state that they are making the deposit under protest and request the Court not to permit the landlord or the petitioner in the eviction petition to withdraw the disputed amount, pending decision in the revision proceedings. (C) If a revision petitioner (tenant, or a person who is held to be a tenant of the eviction petitioner, but who disputes such position) does not pay or deposit the rents up-to-date, as on the date of filing of the revision petition, he shall show cause for non-payment or non-deposit of up-to-date rents in the revision petition. 'the revisional Court shall not reject the revision petition straightaway on the ground that rents are rot paid/deposited. It will have to give an opportunity to such revision petitioner to show cause why the revision petition should not be dismissed for failure to deposit or pay the up-to-date rent. If the revision petitioner shows sufficient cause as to why the revision petition should not be dismissed, in spite of failure to pay/deposit the arrears on or before the date of filing the revision petition, the revisional Court may either grant time for payment/deposit, or permit the revision petitioner to prosecute the revision petition, without deposit. (D) If the revision petition is registered or admitted without notice or without notice or adequate opportunity to the landlord, the landlord may subsequently bring to the notice of the revisional Court, the failure of the revision petitioner to pay or deposit the arrears of rent before preferring the revision petition; and if the revision petitioner fails to satisfy the Court that up-to-date rents were deposited as on date of riling of the revision petition and fails to show sufficient cause as to why revision petition should not be dismissed, the Court will dismiss the revision petition. (E) If the revision petitioner complies with the requirement of paying or depositing the entire arrears before preferring the revision petition and thereafter fails to pay the rents during the pendency of the revision petition (and if no order had been passed under Section 29 in the Trial court), the landlord will have to initiate action by filing an application under Section 29 as is done in the Trial Court, when there is default. ( 13 ) TO sum up, there are two requirements before rejecting a revision petition, for non-compliance with Section 29 (1 ). ( 13 ) TO sum up, there are two requirements before rejecting a revision petition, for non-compliance with Section 29 (1 ). The first is failure on the part of the tenant, to pay/deposit the up-to-date rents on or before the date of filing the revision petition. The second is revision petitioner failuring to show sufficient cause as to why the revision petition should not be dismissed. The occasion for the revision petitioner to show sufficient cause against rejection of revision petition under Section 29 (4) arises only when the first condition is not satisfied. It follows therefore that there can be no automatic dismissal of the revision petition, merely on the ground that all the arrears of rent were not deposited on or before the date of filing the revision petition. On the other hand, when Section 29 (1) is not complied, and the arrears of rents are not paid or deposited on or before the date of filing the revision petition, the cause that should be shown by the revision petitioner, to avoid rejection of eviction petition, should be strong and clear. Mere financial hardship or causes which are the own making of the tenant or causes which could have been avoided by the tenant, will not be considered as sufficient cause. Let me now consider the two points that arise for decision in this case on the basis of the aforesaid principles. Re: Point (i): ( 14 ) SECTION 29 (1) of the Act uses the words "no tenant. . . . shall be entitled. . . . to prefer or prosecute a revision petition under Section 50 against an order made by the Court on an applipation under Section 21, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with. . . the district or the High Court, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises upto the date of deposit. . . ". The provisions of sections 29 and 50 of the Act make it clear that Section 50 will have to be read subject to Section 29. Registration of a revision petition filed under Section 50 (2) or admission of a revision petition under Section 50 (1), will not come in the way of examining whether there has been compliance with the statutory requirement under Section 29 (1 ). Registration of a revision petition filed under Section 50 (2) or admission of a revision petition under Section 50 (1), will not come in the way of examining whether there has been compliance with the statutory requirement under Section 29 (1 ). When a district Court registers a revision petition or when a High Court admits a petition, normally it is done without notice to the respondent-landlord and without hearing him. The Court proceeds on the averments and representations made in the revision petition in regard to payment/deposit of up-to-date rents. The correctness of such a statement can be examined only when the landlord appears and contests the claim of the tenant. It is always, therefore, open to the landlord to demonstrate that the tenant who has filed the revision petition under Section 50, has not complied with Section 29 (1) by depositing all arrears of rents up-to-date, as on the date of filing the revision petition. The Court is bound to consider such question, when raised, irrespective of registration or admission of the revision petition. ( 15 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in Hukumchand's case, supra, relied on by the respondents is of no assistance. In that case, the High court had dismissed a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC on the ground that the revision petitioner had failed to deposit the rents. In an appeal filed by the landlord before the Supreme Court, the tenant's counsel conceded that the revision could not have been dismissed on that ground. The Supreme Court, therefore, held: "revision petition once admitted has to be disposed of on merits. The High Court was in error in dismissing the revision petition on account of failure of the appellants to deposit some rent which had become due". What was considered and decided was whether the High Court, having admitted a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC, could subsequently reject the revision petition on the ground that the revision petitioner had failed to deposit some rent which had become due. The statutory requirement of section 29 that no tenant shall be entitled to prefer or prosecute a revision under Section 50, unless he pays or deposits up-to-date rents, is inapplicable to revisions under Section 115 of the CPC. The statutory requirement of section 29 that no tenant shall be entitled to prefer or prosecute a revision under Section 50, unless he pays or deposits up-to-date rents, is inapplicable to revisions under Section 115 of the CPC. Therefore, any principle laid down in Hukumchand's case, with reference to a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC will not apply to a revision petition under Section 50 of the Act. There is yet another ground for the inapplicability of Hukumchand's case to a revision proceedings before a district Court. A revision petition filed before the High Court is listed for admission and the High Court after considering the grounds of revision and hearing the petitioner, applies its mind and decides whether the revision petition is worthy of being entertained for a regular hearing. But, there is no such 'admission' stage for registration of revision petition before the District Court. Therefore, mere registration of a revision petition will not bar a subsequent consideration whether the revision petitioner has complied with the requirements of law. But nothing stated in this para, will come in the way of High Court ensuring due payment of rents by a tenant, during the pendency of a second revision filed by the tenant, under Section 115 of the CPC. ( 16 ) THE District Court, therefore, committed an error of jurisdiction in holding that the question of maintainability of a revision petition on the ground of non-compliance with Section 29 (1) by non-payment or non-deposit of up-to-date rent on or before the date of filing the revision petition, cannot be considered once the revision petition was registered. If landlords are to be denied the benefit of Section 29 (1), and if tenants can avoid the penal consequences of non-compliance with Section 29 (1), merely because the revision petition is registered, that part of Section 29 (1) requiring the tenant to pay or deposit the up-to-date rents as a condition for preferring a revision petition, will be rendered otiose. Hence, the first point is answered in the negative and in favour of the petitioners. Re: Point (ii): ( 17 ) IT is no doubt true that sub-section (1) of Section 29 requires the tenant who files a revision petition under Section 50 to pay or deposit the rents upto that date before filing the revision petition. Hence, the first point is answered in the negative and in favour of the petitioners. Re: Point (ii): ( 17 ) IT is no doubt true that sub-section (1) of Section 29 requires the tenant who files a revision petition under Section 50 to pay or deposit the rents upto that date before filing the revision petition. The consequence of non-compliance with sub-section (1) of Section 29, is contained in sub-section (4) of Section 29. When rent is not paid or deposited in the manner provided in Section 29(1), the revisional Court shall dismiss the revision petition unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary. ( 18 ) IT is not possible to read Section 29 (1) as referring to both the cause and consequence and ignore Section 29 (4 ). Sub-section (1) refers to the 'cause' giving rise to the 'consequence' in sub-section (4 ). Therefore, section 29 (1) which provides that no tenant shall be entitled to prefer a revision petition without paying or depositing the up-to-date rents, cannot be interpreted as leading to an automatic rejection of the revision without considering whether there is sufficient cause for such non-payment or non-deposit. I am fortified in this view by the decision in tip-panna's case, supra. Therefore, even if the revision petitioner fails to fulfil the mandatory requirement of Section 29 (1), by failing to pay or deposit up-to-date rents before filing the revision petition, the revisional court should not reject the revision petition, if the revision petitioner shows sufficient cause as to why revision petition should not be dismissed. ( 19 ) THIS aspect may be better demonstrated on an illustration, as was done in Thomas Veigas case, supra, with reference to Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides that every suit instituted or appeal preferred, after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed. Section 5 provides that any appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant satisfied the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period prescribed. Section 3 treats both suits and appeals on an equal footing. But Section 5 creates an exception in the case of appeals. The effect of Section 3 is clear and strict. Section 3 treats both suits and appeals on an equal footing. But Section 5 creates an exception in the case of appeals. The effect of Section 3 is clear and strict. Whatever may be the merit of the suit or the appeal, they should be dismissed if they are not filed within the prescribed period. But, then in regard to appeals, Section 5 provides that if the appellant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, the appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period. Such relaxation is not available in the case of suits and consequently a suit will have to be dismissed as barred by limitation even if the plaintiff has sufficient cause for not filing it within the period prescribed. A revision petition preferred by a respondent in an eviction petition without paying/depositing the up-to-date rents, is more akin to an appeal filed after limitation, and is not like a suit filed beyond the limitation period. ( 20 ) EVERY tenant (either a person who admits to be a tenant or a person who does not admit that he is a tenant, but is held to be a tenant by the Trial Court) who files a revision petition under Section 50 (1) or 50 (2) and who has not paid or deposited the rents up-to-date as required under Section 29 (1) shall have to show sufficient cause as to why the revision petition should not be dismissed in spite of non-payment of rents. The 'sufficient cause' to be shown in Section 29 (4) is however different from the 'sufficient cause' to be shown under Section 5 of the limitation Act. Under Section 5, the appellant has to show he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time and he should establish diligence. But, under Section 29 (4) the revision petitioner has to show sufficient cause as to why the revision petition should not be dismissed. What is 'sufficient cause' under Section 29 (4) was considered by this Court in the case of Thomas Veigas, supra, as follows:" "when the object of enacting Section 29 is understood, it is obvious that what the legislature intended was to confer the power on the Courts to grant relief against forfeiture incurred for non-payment of rent". . . . What is 'sufficient cause' under Section 29 (4) was considered by this Court in the case of Thomas Veigas, supra, as follows:" "when the object of enacting Section 29 is understood, it is obvious that what the legislature intended was to confer the power on the Courts to grant relief against forfeiture incurred for non-payment of rent". . . . "what circumstances would constitute 'sufficient cause' to afford relief to the tenant under sub-section (4) not having been laid down by the Act, the Courts have to exercise the discretionary power taking all the facts and circumstances of the case. In the consideration of the facts and circumstances, one of the relevant considerations would be the circumstances under which the tenant failed to pay or make the deposit. But that would not amount to saying that the 'sufficient cause' has to be shown for the default. The tenant has to show cause by submitting all the facts and circumstances of the case including the circumstances under which he made default. The Court in exercising its jurisdiction under the said sub-section must judge each case on its facts. The delay, the conduct of the parties and the difficulties to which the landlord has been put to should all enter into the consideration. If the delay is not great and from the conduct of the tenant no want of bona fides can be imputed to him, and if he makes payments by paying interest and costs, I do not see why the Court will not be justified in granting relief to the tenant". (emphasis supplied) ( 21 ) THERE may be cases where the revision petitions are filed by respondents in eviction petitions against orders rejecting their denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant. There may be cases where the tenants have admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, but might have disputed the rate of rent or the period for which the rent is due. There may be cases where the tenant could not pay or deposit the up-to-date rents, due to circumstances clearly beyond his control. It is possible for the tenant to demonstrate that the Trial Court had committed a serious error and if the revisional Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not rejecting the petition, it may proceed with the revision on merits. It is possible for the tenant to demonstrate that the Trial Court had committed a serious error and if the revisional Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not rejecting the petition, it may proceed with the revision on merits. The effect of Section 29 is to take away the protection against eviction to tenants who are recalcitrant, unscrupulous and highhanded and who fail to pay the rents regularly. The intention of Section 29 is not to take away the protection against eviction to tenants who have sufficient cause and bona fide reasons for non-payment. Where there is a bona fide and serious dispute as to whether the respondent in the eviction petition is a tenant at all or where there is a serious dispute in regard to the arrears claimed, if the revisional Court is satisfied that the Order under revision is ex facie erroneous, it may use its judicial discretion under Section 29 (4) not to dismiss the revision petition for non-payment. The question of exercising such discretion vested in the revisional Court by virtue of sub-section (4) would arise, only after a violation of sub-section (1) is established. The non-compliance with subsection (1) leads to the stage where the revisional Court has to consider whether the revision petitioner has shown sufficient cause against rejection and then decide whether the revision should be rejected or not for non-compliance with Section 29 (1 ). If there is compliance with Section 29 (1), the question of the revisional Court exercising the discretionary power under sub-section (4) does not arise. The second question is thus answered in the negative. Finding: ( 22 ) THE reason given by the learned District Judge for extending the stay is erroneous. But, it cannot be said that the stay should be vacated or revision petition should be dismissed without considering the cause, if any, shown by the revision petitioner. ( 23 ) THESE petitions are, therefore, disposed of directing the District court to consider the question whether the petitioners before the District court have complied with Section 29 (1) of the Act; and if they have not complied with the same, then consider whether they have shown sufficient cause for not dismissing the revision petitions under Section 29 (4) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This direction, of course, will not apply if in the meanwhile the revision petitions are already disposed of on merits. --- *** --- .