Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 207 (KAR)

Mastan Sab v. Ramalingareddy

2001-03-01

R.GURURAJAN

body2001
ORDER R. Gururajan, J.—Petitioner-tenant is challenging the order of the Principal District Judge, Bidar, in HRC No. 1 of 1997, dated 14.10.1997. Respondent-landlord filed eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a)(h) and (f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('Act' for short) before the Rent Control Court seeking for eviction of the premises occupied by the tenant. An application was filed under Section 29(4) of the Act for stoppage of all proceedings. The trial Court directed the Petitioner to pay the rents in terms of the said Act. There is a dispute with regard to the quantum of the rent. In those circumstances the Petitioner filed petition under Section 29(3) of the Act. The same was contested. After contest the Court ruled that the arrears stood at Rs. 36,000/-. This order was challenged in a revision petition under Section 50(2) of the Act in HRC R1 of 1997. The Revisional Court by order dated 15.2.1997 directed the Petitioner-tenant to deposit the entire amount as quantified by the trial Court as arrears before invoking powers of the revisional Court. Petitioner-tenant deposited only a sum of Rs. 18,000/- in the Court. The said deposit was permitted to be made without prejudice to the rights of the parties and subject to the validity of such deposit and regarding maintainability of the revision petition vide order dated 10.4.1997. IA I was filed by the Petitioner seeking for stay of execution of the order. IA 2 is filed by the Petitioner again to deposit only Rs. 18,000/- and praying for six weeks time to deposit the balance. IA 4 is filed for holding a summary enquiry on Section 29(3). IA 5 is filed by the landlord for disposal of the petition on account of violation of the order. The matter was heard. The revisional Judge framed as many as 4 issues for his consideration. Revisional Judge answered in negative all the points and ruled that revision is not maintainable in the impugned order. This order is challenged before me by the tenant. 2. Sri Gachhinmath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully argued before me and contended that the trial Court is not competent to pass the impugned order since according to him Section 14 comes in the way of the landlord. He relies on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Deshraj Vs. Akhtar Hussain, AIR 1961 SC 148 . 3. 2. Sri Gachhinmath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully argued before me and contended that the trial Court is not competent to pass the impugned order since according to him Section 14 comes in the way of the landlord. He relies on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Deshraj Vs. Akhtar Hussain, AIR 1961 SC 148 . 3. Per contra Sri Manikappa Patil supported the order. 4. After hearing the Counsel on either side I have perused the impugned order. The admitted facts reveal that HRC case is filed for eviction and in terms of Section 29 an application was filed for stoppage of proceedings and the Court below passed an order directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent. In view of the controversy the tenant rightly invoked Section 29(3) of the Act. The learned Judge after hearing the parties in detail ordered payment of Rs. 36,000/- being the arrears. When a revision is filed against that order the revisional judge rejected the same in the absence of deposit of arrears in terms of Section 50 of the Act. The arguments of Sri Gachhinmath is that only Section 14(1) provided for enhancement of rent. Counsel forget that an adverse order was passed in terms of Section 29. He himself has filed an application under Section 29(3) of the Act. The entire Section 29 deal with the deposit during the pendency of proceedings. Enhancement of rent is different from deposit of the rent under Section 29. Therefore, the argument of the Counsel that the impugned order of the revisional Judge is unsustainable in view of Section 14 cannot be accepted in the light of Section 29 of the Act. 5. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Deshraj Vs. Akhtar Hussain, AIR 1961 SC 148 is not applicable to the facts of the case. That was a case with regard to determination of fair rent and with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court after the Rent Control Act is brought into force. The facts in this case is with regard to the failure to deposit the rent in terms Section 29 of the Act Therefore this judgment is wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case. 6. Similarly, the judgment reported in 1974 KLJ 18 also is not applicable tot he facts of this case. The facts in this case is with regard to the failure to deposit the rent in terms Section 29 of the Act Therefore this judgment is wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case. 6. Similarly, the judgment reported in 1974 KLJ 18 also is not applicable tot he facts of this case. That case is with regard to the determination of arrears of rent. It is not a case with regard to stoppage of proceedings under Section 29 as in this case. 7. In the case on hand there was a dispute with regard to quantum of rent and Section 29(3) was invoked by the very Petitioner and suffered an adverse order. Section 50 of the Act provides for revision by the High Court against an order passed by the Court of Appeal or the Court of the Civil Judge. Similarly a revision is available to District Judge for examination of an order passed or proceedings taken by a Court of Munsiff under the Act. Section 29 provides for deposit and payment of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. It is a safeguard made in favour of the landlord. I categorically provides that 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 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 Court 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 last 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. The remedy of revision is conditional as I see from Section 29 of the Act. Admittedly in the case on hand an eviction petition has been filed and an order has been passed under Section 29 of the Act. 8. The remedy of revision is conditional as I see from Section 29 of the Act. Admittedly in the case on hand an eviction petition has been filed and an order has been passed under Section 29 of the Act. When the Petitioner files revision under Section 50(2) in the matter of examination of that order passed by the Court of Munsiff the tenant has to deposit in terms Section 29 of the Act while filing the revision. The non-deposit is fatal to the case on hand. In the case on hand an order of arrears of Rs. 36,000/- has been passed by the trial Judge. The same is challenged by way of a revision under Section 50(2) of the Act. Unless the tenant deposits the entire arrears in terms of Section 50 he cannot prosecute his revision. Therefore the Revision Judge is right in holding against the Petitioner in the impugned order. He has given cogent reasons and has considered scope of Section 29 and Section 50 of the Act in the order while dismissing the petition. 9. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with this reasoned order. 10. Mr. Gachhinmath however maintained that he has paid the entire arrears in terms of the order of the Court before prosecuting the order. This is not correct. A memo is filed in this Court in which Petitioner himself states a sum of Rs. 18,000/- is deposited in the case in HRC R No. 1 of 1997 before the Principal District Judge. The remaining balance of Rs. 18,000/- is deposited in Munsiff Court admittedly on 15.12.1997. The order of the Court was on 14.10.1997. The deposit is subsequent to the order of the Court. Therefore, on the date when the revision was heard there was no deposit of all arrears due in respect of premises in terms of Section 29 read with Section 50 of the Act. 11. In the circumstances, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere with the order of the Court below. Petition stands dismissed. No costs.