Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 629 (KAR)

RAMESHAPPA v. RUDRAPPA PATTANASHETTY

2005-09-22

K.BHAKTHAVATSALA

body2005
ORDER This is tenant's revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order dated 11-7-2005 made in unnumbered Revision Petition ®……/2005 on the file of District Judge at Davanagere. 2. The petitioner/tenant is represented by Sri G.M. Chandrashekar. The respondent is represented by Sri M. Ram Bhat. 3. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard arguments for final disposal. 4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the revision petition may be stated as under: The respondent/landlord filed I.A. No. I under Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 in H.R.C. No.9 of 2001 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Davanagere, seeking direction to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 36,800/- due as on 28-2-2002, within stipulated time, and also to deposit the current rents regularly as and when it falls due. The Trial Court after hearing arguments, by an order on 29-3-2005 allowed the said application and directed the tenant to pay arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 48,800/- due to the landlord as per the memo of calculations. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the Trial Court, the tenant preferred a revision petition. Since the tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent along with the revision petition, which was filed on 3-6-2005, it was not registered. On 23-6-2005, the tenant deposited Rs. 48,800/-. On 11-7-2005, the learned District Judge, even without registering the revision petition, rejected the revision petition, as not maintainable, on the ground that the petitioner/tenant did not comply with Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Therefore, the petitioner/tenant is before this Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant submitted that as directed by the Trial Court, the am0unt of Rs. 48,800/- was deposited on 23-6-2005. Subsequently, on 1-7-2005, the tenant has paid a sum of Rs. 3,200/- to the Counsel for the landlord appearing in the revision petition. But, the Court below has dismissed the revision petition on technical ground. He further submits that the Trial Court while passing the impugned order challenged before the learned District Judge, has not stipulated any time-limit to deposit the alleged arrears of rent. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord argued in Support of the impugned order. 7. He further submits that the Trial Court while passing the impugned order challenged before the learned District Judge, has not stipulated any time-limit to deposit the alleged arrears of rent. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord argued in Support of the impugned order. 7. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the recent decision in K.A. Grace and Another v. M.S. Lakshmipathi Naidu and Others, in which case the decision in K. Raghunath v Chandrasekhar, was followed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in above said Grace case has held in para 9 of the judgment as under: "9 .... the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act in question are not happily worded. In fact, there is no limitation prescribed for preferring a revision petition. In any event, in view of the guidelines laid down by the High Court, if there was a delay of about 15 days in making the deposit, or presenting the revision petition, the same ought to have been condoned and the revision decided on merit. We do not therefore, consider it necessary to discuss the various legal submissions urged before us, and which were also urged before the High Court, on the question as to whether the revision petition shall be deemed to have been preferred on June 25, 1999, when it was initially presented, or on July 9, 1999, when it was re-presented after payment of arrears of rent. We, therefore, allow this appeal and remit the matter to the High Court for disposal of the revision petition in accordance with law". 8. In view of the recent decision of the Apex Court, the learned District Judge was not justified in dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable on the ground that the arrears of rent was not deposited, when the revision petition was presented. 9. For the reasons said supra, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11-7-2005 made in un-numbered Rev. P. ®….. /2005 on the file of District Judge, Davanagere, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned District Judge, with a direction to register the revision petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law, on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, for further proceedings, without notice, on 19-10-2005. No costs.