Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 12 (KAR)

S. R. APPU RAO v. PADAMAWATHAMMA

2002-01-04

A.V.SRINIVASA REDDY

body2002
A. V. SRINIVASA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 115 of the CPC is preferred by the tenant being aggrieved by the order dated 4th december, 2000 passed by the court below declining to entertain the revision petition filed against the order dated 10-8-2000 passed by the principal civil judge (junior division), hassan in h. r. c. No. 10 of 1993. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are these: respondent-landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (a), (h) and (c) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the act' for short) before the h. r. c. Court. The h. r. c. Court after hearing, allowed the petition under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the act. Being aggrieved, by the said order of eviction the petitioner-tenant preferred revision before the court below challenging the eviction order. In revision, the respondent-landlady filed an application under Section 29 (1) of the act before the court below praying for stopping of the further proceedings. The court below framed an issue on the maintainability of the revision petition. After hearing the parties on the said application, the question was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the landlord holding that the revision was not maintainable for non-compliance of Section 29 (1) of the act. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the present revision is filed. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsels on both sides. ( 4 ) THE h. r. c. Court had framed eight issues. The second issue concerned the default in payment of rents by the tenant. On that issue the h. r. c. Court reached the following conclusion:"though it is admitted that the respondent paid arrears of rents upto 31-1-1992, from the month of February 1992 upto October 1992 arrears of rents is still there, even as on the date of the petition. When such being the case the respondent is chronic defaulter in making the payment of arrears of rents". therefore, there was a clear finding of fact by the h. r. c. Court on the question of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month which was the rent as admitted by the tenant/petitioner himself. Unquestionably, therefore, there was a clear finding of fact against the tenant/revision petitioner on the question of arrears of rent. therefore, there was a clear finding of fact by the h. r. c. Court on the question of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month which was the rent as admitted by the tenant/petitioner himself. Unquestionably, therefore, there was a clear finding of fact against the tenant/revision petitioner on the question of arrears of rent. This decision by the h. r. c. Court on a pure question of fact was sought to be challenged before the court below. When a finding of fact recorded on the question of arrears of rent is to be challenged by the party aggrieved, the party has to comply with the requirement of Section 29 (4) of the act failing which the bar enshrined in the said provision would automatically operate and the only course open to the revisional court would be to stop all further proceedings. I am fully satisfied that the cause shown by the tenant/revision petitioner before the court below was not sufficient and satisfactory to do away with the requirement of Section 29 (4 ). Therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below to that effect does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality requiring the interference at the hands of this court under Section 115 of the CPC. ( 5 ) IN p. r, deshpande v maruti balaram haibatti, the three judges bench of the apex court dealing with the legal consequence that follows non-compliance with Section 29 of the Act, held:"the words in sub-section (1) "or to prefer or prosecute a revision petition under Section 50" encompass two stages. First is at the threshold when the tenant files the petition for revision. Second is a stage when he prosecutes his revision. On the first stage, his revision petition is not maintainable unless it is accompanied by either payment or deposit of "all the arrears of rent due up to the date of payment or deposit". If the revision is validly preferred, then in the next stage of prosecution of revision, the tenant has to continue to pay or deposit "any rent which may subsequently become due" until termination of the proceedings". If the revision is validly preferred, then in the next stage of prosecution of revision, the tenant has to continue to pay or deposit "any rent which may subsequently become due" until termination of the proceedings". mindful of the failure in the said case by the tenant to deposit the rents as required, their lordships proceeded to hold that, 'by not paying the rents falling due during the pendency of the proceedings the tenant forfeits his right to prosecute the revision'. A similar situation obtains in the case herein also. ( 6 ) A tenant who suffers an order under Section 21 (1) (a) of the act before the h. r. c. Court if he intends to challenge the same before the revisional court, it is mandatory that he should deposit the rent as determined by the h. r. c. Court, failing which the finding becomes immune to challenge and no revision would lie against such a finding excepting in a case where the tenant would have sufficient cause for not doing so, even in such a case the cause shown must be acceptable to the revisional court. Where some cause is shown and the same was not accepted by the first revisional court, this court cannot go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the cause shown in a revision brought before this court under Section 115 of the CPC. The satisfaction is that of the first revisional court and it is subjective satisfaction. When the revisional court records its dissatisfaction about the cause shown, the tenant has to suffer the consequences that follow in the light, of Section 29 (4) of the act. ( 7 ) THE matter can be viewed from another angle also. The court in a revision under Section 50 of the Act, while adjudicating a matter arising under Section 29 (4) does not make an order on merits. What it does under Section 29 (4) of the act is to direct the erring tenant to face the consequence that perforce follows his failure to abide by the statutory precondition that is imposed on him. Such an order is immune from being questioned in a revision under Section 115 of the CPC as it does not amount to a case decided. Such an order is immune from being questioned in a revision under Section 115 of the CPC as it does not amount to a case decided. ( 8 ) IN the view that I have taken, there is no merit in the revision petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed by granting time till 31-3-2002. --- *** --- .