Judgment :- (This HRRP filed under Section 115 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2009 passed in HRCRP 16/1996 on the file of the District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Shimoga, dismissing the petition filed against the order dated 04.03.1996 passed in HRC No.71/1987 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff, Shimoga, allowing the petition filed under Sec.21(1)(a) and 21(1)(j) of K R Act.) These revision petitions are filed by the tenants challenging the order dated 3-12-2009 under which the interlocutory applications namely I.A.No.14, and I.A.No.7 and I.A.No.15 filed by the landlords came to be allowed and revision petitions filed by the tenants before the District Judge, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga came to be dismissed as not maintainable and revision petitioners-tenants were granted three months time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of petition schedule premises to the landlord. 2. For sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as per ranks before trial court (hereinafter referred to as Rent Court). The respondents herein claiming to be landlords of petition schedule premises filed eviction petitions in HRC 71/1987, 83/87, 87/87 and 103/87 under Section 21(1)(a) and (j) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 1961, Act). It was contended by them that entire property wherein the petition schedule premises are located is situated at Laskhar Mohalla now called as Savarkarnagar is belonging to them and it is in occupation of the tenants and tenants were irregular and chronic defaulters in the matter of rentals and were withholding rents from October-1984 and failed to pay arrears of rent in spite of repeated demands and as such a notice dated 1-3-1987 came to be issued calling upon the tenants to pay the arrears of rent from October 1984. It was also contended that petitioners intended to demolish the existing construction and for the said purpose they reasonably and bonafide required the schedule premises. 3. On service of notice respondents-tenants appeared before trial court and filed their detailed objection statements and pleaded that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondents and a specific contention was taken that they are tenants under Jadedevara Mutt which belonged to Kuruba community and they were paying and have paid rents to Jadedevara Mutt. The requirement pleaded by the petitioners was also denied. The requirement pleaded by the petitioners was also denied. On the basis of the pleadings trial Court framed following points for its consideration: 1. Whether there exists a relationship of landlords and tenants between the petitioners and the respondents? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that the respondents have kept the arrears of rent and failed to pay the same within the statutory period? 2.A. If so, whether the respondents had sufficient causes for the default to pay the said arrears within the stipulated period? 3. Whether the petitioners reasonably and bonafide require the premises for the immediate purpose of the demolishing and erecting a new building in that place? 4. What order? 4. After considering the oral evidence and arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the parties trial Court by order dated 4-3-1996 allowed the eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) & (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by this order tenants filed revision petitions before District Court in Revision Petition Nos.16/1996, 17/96, 26/96 and 31/96 along with other revision petitions. An application for stay of the operation of the eviction order also came to be filed by the tenants before the Revisional Court. Initially an interim order of stay was granted and on service of notice the landlords appeared and objected to the stay being continued on the ground that revision petitioners had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of not depositing the arrears of rents determined by the Court below. The Revisional Court by order dated 21-8-1987 allowed the application for stay and extended the interim order of stay earlier granted till the disposal of the revision petitions. Aggrieved by this order landlords preferred revision petitions before this Court in HRRP 1048/1997, 1232/1997, 1231/1997 and 1229/1997. This Court by order dated 24-7-1998 remitted the matter to the Revisional Court to consider the question whether the petitioners before the District Court have complied with Section 29(1) of the 1961, Act and if they have not complied with the same, to consider whether they have shown sufficient cause for not dismissing the revision petitions under Section 29(4) of the Act. Accordingly, revision petitions was once again before the Revisional Court, for adjudication. Thereafterwards Fact Track Court Shimoga by order dated 20-7-2006 dismissed the revision petitions and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Court. 6. Accordingly, revision petitions was once again before the Revisional Court, for adjudication. Thereafterwards Fact Track Court Shimoga by order dated 20-7-2006 dismissed the revision petitions and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Court. 6. Aggrieved by this order dated 20-7-2006 the tenants filed revision petition before this Court in HRRP No.443, 442/2006, 445/2006 and 446/2006. This Court after considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing for both the parties set aside the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 20-7-2006 and remanded the matter back to the Revisional Court for considering the same under the provisions of the new Rent Act, in view of Section 70 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Act, 1999). It was observed by this Court to the following effect: “It is needless to state that the petitioner-tenants shall have to comply with Section 45 of the New Rent Act to prosecute the revision petitions before the Revisional Court”. 7. With these observations revision petitions filed by the tenants came to be allowed and matter was remitted to the Revisional Court for reconsideration in the light of the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 by leaving open all the contentions of the parties. On being remanded, the revisional Court i.e., District Judge, I-Fast Track Court, at Shimoga took up these revision petitions along with interlocutory applications filed by the respondents/landlords invoking Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 sought for dismissal of revision petitions on the ground of non-deposit of rents as determined to be due by the Rent Court. The Revisional Court after hearing the arguments and considering the plea put forward by the respective parties formulated the following point for its consideration: Whether respondents 3 and 4 have made out sufficient grounds to allow I.A.No.XIV and XV? 8. The Court below having heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the tenants and landlords by its order dated 3-12-2009 allowed the applications filed by the landlords and dismissed the revision petitions holding that revision petitioners have not deposited the arrears of rent as determined by the trial Court and as such held revision petitions were not maintainable in view of Section 29 of the 1961 Act and Section 45 of Rent Act, 1999. It is this order dated 3-12-2009 passed by the District Judge, I-Fast Track Court at Shimoga which is questioned in these revision petitions by tenants. 9. I have heard Sri. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Ashok Haranhalli, Associates for petitioners and Sriyuths M.V. Hiremath, K.G. Naik and S.V. Prakash, learned advocates appearing for the respondents. 10. Sri. Subramanya appearing on behalf of the petitioners would contend that order dated 3-12-2009 is a non-speaking order and no reasons have been assigned in the order. He would submit that revision petitioners had not paid rents to respondents No.1 to 5 at any point of time and it is their specific case that they are tenants under Jadedevara Mutt. He would submit that when matter was remanded on 24-7-98 and also on 20-3-2009 this court had left open all the points to be considered including the relationship of landlord and tenant and Revisional Court has not considered the direction given in the order 24-7-1998 and since issue regarding jural relationship has not been considered and appreciated in its proper perspective order dated 3-12-2009 is to be set aside. He would also submit that Revisional Court has not considered the findings given in O.S.No.217/1986 which is carried in appeal before this Court in RFA No.772/2000 and an order of status quo has been passed on 6-9-2004. He would draw the attention of Court to the findings given by the Civil Court in O.S.No.217/1986 while considering and determining issue No.7 and 9 to contend that landlords in these petitions did not have right to evict the respondents. By reiterating what has been held in O.S.No.217/1986 he would contend that petitioners in HRC No.71/87 and other connected matters are not landlords and they are not entitled to demand or receive the rents. He draws attention of this Court particularly with reference to issue No.4 framed in O.S.No.217/1986 wherein it has been held that suit properties are belonging to Sri. Jadedevara Mutt which includes Kalyanappa mutt also and accordingly submits that order of the revisional Court is liable to be set aside. Sri. He draws attention of this Court particularly with reference to issue No.4 framed in O.S.No.217/1986 wherein it has been held that suit properties are belonging to Sri. Jadedevara Mutt which includes Kalyanappa mutt also and accordingly submits that order of the revisional Court is liable to be set aside. Sri. Subramanya contends that while HRRP No.443/2006 was disposed of by this Court on 20-3-2009 to contend that Revisional Court ought to have considered whether the finding of the trial Court on the issue regarding jural relationship is just and proper by holding the enquiry as contemplated under Section 43 Rent Act then only it ought to have considered issue regarding payment of rent. He would submit that issue regarding the ownership is under adjudication in O.S.No.217/1986 and to avoid any conflicting decisions being arrived at, Revisional Court ought to have awaited the decision in RFA No.772/2000 and not embark upon considering the revision petitions either on merits or on maintainability. He would elaborate his submission to contend that all ingredients of Section 43 are attracted to facts of present case and instead of referring to parties to adjudicate their dispute in Civil Court, Revisional Court should have awaited the final out come arising out of the decision of the Civil Court (O.S.No.217/1986) and by giving contrary findings to that of Civil Court, Revisional Court cannot nullify the findings of Civil Court. He would also submit that respondents in these revision petitions were also parties to the said original suit and any finding given therein is also binding on them when particularly they themselves have filed cross objections in RFA 772/2000 and have challenged the findings given therein. 11. Sri. Subramanya would contend this Court while disposing of the revision petition on 24-7-1998 had directed the trial Court to consider two aspects namely “cause” and the “consequence” of the cause shown. This being the mandate of the order passed by this Court on 24-7-1998 had not been scrupulously followed by the Revisional Court and as such he submits the order suffers from error on facts and is required to be reconsidered by the Revisional Court. He would contend that Revisional Court ought to have called upon the revision petitioners to show cause as to why revision petitions should not be dismissed for non-payment of rents and non consideration of this aspect has resulted in great prejudice to the revision petitioners. He would contend that Revisional Court ought to have called upon the revision petitioners to show cause as to why revision petitions should not be dismissed for non-payment of rents and non consideration of this aspect has resulted in great prejudice to the revision petitioners. He would submit that finding given by the trial Court that one of the tenant’s had paid the rents, as the basis to come to a conclusion that all the tenants have paid the rents to the revision petitioners is a grave error committed on facts and as such requests the Court to set aside the order passed by the Revisional Court. In support of his submissions he relies upon the following judgments: (i) 2010 AIR SCW 154 Rishab Chand bhandari (D) by L.Rs & Anr Vs. National Engineering Industry Ltd., (ii) AIR 2009 (NOC) 1853 T.R. Jaganath Vs. Gokul Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. (iii) I.L.R. 1990 Kar 4054 Thippanna Laxman Waghmode Vs. Godavaribai (iv) (2003) 10 SCC 86 Virender Singh and others Vs. Union of India. 12. Per Contra Sri. M.V. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 (J.M. Chenneshaiah) would contend that Civil Court while considering issue No.8 regarding right of ownership of properties in O.S.No.217/1986 has held in favour of Mutt and in so far as that part of the finding which is held against them has been challenged in cross-objections No.6/2005 (in RFA.No.772/2000) and on this ground he supports the order dated 3-12-2009 passed by the Revisional Court. He would draw the attention of the Court to paragraph 9 of the order passed by the trial Court to contend that on scrutiny of the evidence and documents produced by the petitioner/landlords, it has held that property in question belong to ancestors and forefathers of the petitioner wherein the schedule premises are constructed and it is also brought to the notice of this Court that R.W.1 has not denied his relationship with petitioner/landlords at the first instance when he was served with the notice and accordingly the trial Court has held that there exists the jural relationship of landlord and tenant which cannot be found fault with. He would also submit that regarding sufficiency of cause has been considered by the trial Court and it has been held that payment to a person other than the landlord would not enure to the benefit of the tenants and as such the trial Court has rightly held that respondent tenants have not paid or deposited rents even during the pendency of revision petition which according to Sri. Hiremath cannot be found fault with either on facts or on law. Drawing the attention of the Court to Section 43(1) of Rent Act, 1999 he would submit that while adjudicating the jural relationship between the parties it is subjective satisfaction of the Court which requires to be considered and was in fact considered in a collateral proceeding and as per Ex.P.4 to P.8 it has been held that petition schedule premises belong to the ancestors/forefathers of the petitioner. This aspect having been taken into consideration by the trial Court according to him has rightly come to the conclusion that there exists jural relationship between parties. 13. Sri. Hiremath would submit that two issues would arise for consideration one is with regard to the very maintainability of the revision petition for not depositing the rents which are due as adjudicated by the trial Court and thereafterwards to continue to pay the rents due to the respondent-landlords. During the pendency of revisional proceedings either before the Revisional Court or before this Court rents determined to be due according to trial Court has not been paid or deposited and as such petition was and is not maintainable. In support of this proposition he has relied upon the following decisions: (i) AIR 1998 SC 2979 P.R. Deshpande Vs. Maruti Balaram Haibatti. (ii) 2008 (4) KCCR 2587 Lakshminarayana Sony and another Vs. C. basha. (iii) 2008 (4) KCCR 2429 T.R. Jaganath Vs. M/s Gokul Promoter Private Limited, Bangalore. (iv) 2009 (2) Kar.L.J. 162 . T.R. Jaganath Vs. Gokul Promoters Private Limited, Bangalore. 14. Sri. Maruti Balaram Haibatti. (ii) 2008 (4) KCCR 2587 Lakshminarayana Sony and another Vs. C. basha. (iii) 2008 (4) KCCR 2429 T.R. Jaganath Vs. M/s Gokul Promoter Private Limited, Bangalore. (iv) 2009 (2) Kar.L.J. 162 . T.R. Jaganath Vs. Gokul Promoters Private Limited, Bangalore. 14. Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1(a), 1(b), 2(a) to 2(e) and R-3 would submit that even rent collector can maintain an eviction petition and present eviction petitions were preceded by issue of legal notice and admittedly no reply has been given by the tenants and if they were really paying rents to M/s Jadedevara Mutt they ought to have taken up this contention at the first available opportunity and even R.W.1 does not specify as to how he came into possession of the petition schedule premises and as such present plea put forward is wholly untenable. He would draw the attention of the Court to the evidence of R.W.3 to contend that it is admitted that he has no personal knowledge about rents having been paid by his father and it is also admitted by the said witnesses that his father was in fact paying rents to Shivabasamma. He would submit that no witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents/tenants to establish that at any point of time rents had been paid to Jadedevara Mutt. Even during the pendency of eviction proceedings till the year 2010 no application for impleading Jadedevara Mutt was filed to bring them on record. He would also submit that when petitioner (landlords) issued legal notice and had made a demand claiming arrears of rent from respondents/tenants they ought to have invoked Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and deposited rents and sought for an adjudication thereof if they had any doubt or dispute as to whom they had to pay rent. But they did not do so and inspite of there being demand from the present landlords, they could not have continued to pay rents to Jadedevara Mutt which is nothing but falsehood and collusive act and according to him same ahs been taken note of by the trial Court and rejected and does not call for any interference. But they did not do so and inspite of there being demand from the present landlords, they could not have continued to pay rents to Jadedevara Mutt which is nothing but falsehood and collusive act and according to him same ahs been taken note of by the trial Court and rejected and does not call for any interference. He would also contend that it is the sole intention of respondents/tenants to drag on the Regular First Appeal 772/2000 as well as the present proceedings on one pretext or the other without paying any rents and are attempting to take undue advantage of Civil suit. He submits that no application has been filed for stay of the eviction proceedings which demonstrates that there are no bonafides in their claim. He would submit that office bearers of Jadedevara Mutt were very much aware of the eviction proceedings and they did not get either themselves impleaded in the eviction proceedings nor they sought for stay of the order of injunction which itself clearly establishes that only with the intention of avoiding and evading payment of rent, these revision petitions are filed. 15. Sri. K.G. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would contend that suit filed by Jadedevara Mutt in O.S.No.217/1986 is for declaration and possession and in the event they were to succeed in the suit (in RFA 772/2000) they can take possession of the petition schedule premises and when there is prima facie evidence to establish that petitioners are the landlords of the premises, this Court in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction should not disturb the findings of the trial Court. 16. In support of their submission the learned advocates appearing for respondents herein would rely upon the following judgments: (i) 2010 (1) AIR Kar R 299 (ii) Unreported judgment in CRP No.843/1964 dated 11-2-1966 in the case of R. Srinivasa rao and another Vs. R. Bhima Rao and another. 17. In reply Sri. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit judgment of R. Srinivasa Rao relied upon by the respondent in CRP 843/1964 need not be considered in view of the judgment in HRRP No.1048/1997 and other connected matters dated 24-7-1998 for two reasons namely (i) that later judgment is to be considered and (ii) when two possible views are there the judgment which is in personam, is to be preferred. He would also submit that documents relied upon by the trial Court namely Ex.P.4 to P.8 is in respect of different properties where suit schedule properties are not situated and those judgments are not in personam and it is in rem and hence inapplicable to the facts of the case. 18. He would also draw the attention of the Court to paragraph 18 of the judgment impugned in these revision petitions wherein it has been held: “There is no written lease agreement pertaining to the lease but only an oral tenancy” and as such contends that question of considering Ex.P.4 to P.8 would not arise. He would also submit deposit of rents would be oppressive since same has been paid to the person who has claimed to be the owner of the property namely Jadedevara Mutt and accordingly he contends that they cannot be made to make payment twice, which according to him would constitute sufficient cause for non-payment/deposit of rent. 19. In reply to Deshpande’s case referred by the respondent-landlords he would submit that there was no dispute with regard to jural relationship of landlord and tenant in said case and same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. With regard to T.R. Jagannath’s case referred to by respondents, he would submit that it has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as this Court on an earlier occasion rejected the same plea put forward by the tenant in Jagannath’s case. He would submit that legal notice referred to by trial Court has been issued only to Mr. Subramanya who has not challenged the order of Revision Court and said notice does not pertain to present Revision petitioners. On these grounds he seeks for allowing of the revision petitions and a direction to the Revisional Court to hear the Revision petitions on merits as well. 20. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for both the parties, the following points arise for my consideration: (1) Whether the payment or deposit of rent as contemplated under Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 in the facts and circumstances case is to be held mandatory and the revision petitions are to be held as not maintainable unless the rents are deposited up to date at the time of preferring the revision petitions? (2) Whether a Court, District Judge or High Court as the case may be is required to examine the cause shown for not depositing the rents? Or Dismiss the petition summarily for not depositing the rents? (3) In the facts and circumstances of the case whether the revision petitions dismissed by the Revisional Court for not depositing the rents upto date is to be sustained or set aside? 21. Section 29 of Karnataka Rent Control Act is analogous to Section 45 of Karnataka Rent Act-1999. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned advocates, it would be necessary to extract the relevant provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and the decisions thereon wherein these sections has come up for consideration and interpretation” KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1961 “29. Deposits and payment of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction.- (1) 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 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. (2) The deposit of the rent under sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed and shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed for the service of the notice referred to in sub-section (5). (3) Where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1), the court shall, on application made to it 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. (3) Where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1), the court shall, on application made to it 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. (4) If any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Court, the District Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, shall unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises or dismiss the appeal or revision petition, as the case may be. (5) When any deposit is made under sub-section (1), the court, the District Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, shall cause notice of the deposit to the served on the landlord in the prescribed manner and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in this behalf”. KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 3. Definition – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) to (d) xxxx (e) “landlord” means a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or an account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or to be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant; (f) to (m) xxxx (n) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises, is or but for a special contact would be, payable, and includes, - (i) a sub-tenant; (ii) any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy, but does not include any person to whom a licence as defined in section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Central Act 5 of 1882) has been granted; 27. Protection of tenants against eviction. Protection of tenants against eviction. – (1) xxxx (2) The Court may, on an application made to it in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:- (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent and other charges legally recoverable from him within two months from the date on which a notice of demand for payment of has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act 4 of 1882): Provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to the benefit of service of notice by the landlord under this clause where, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent and other charges payable in respect of those premises: Provided further that where in a proceeding for eviction of a tenant on the ground specified in this clause, the tenant is to be evicted, the Court shall make an order directing the tenant to vacate the premises unless he pays to the landlord or deposits into Court within one month of the date of order, an amount calculated at the rate at which it was last paid, for the period for which the arrears of rent and other charges were legally recoverable from him, including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made; “43. Disputes of relationship of landlord and tenant: (1) Where in any proceedings before the Court, a contention is raised denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties it shall be lawful for the Court to accept the document of lease or where there is no document of lease, a receipt of acknowledgement of payment of rent purported to be signed by the landlord as prima-facie evidence of relationship and proceed to hear the case. (2) Where – (a) the lease pleaded is oral and either party denies relationship, and no receipt or acknowledgment of payment of rent as referred to in sub-section (1) above is produced, or (b) in the opinion of the Court there is reason to suspect the genuine existence of the document of lease or the receipt or acknowledgment of payment of rent. the court shall at once stop all further proceedings before it and direct the parties to approach a competent Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights. 45. Deposit and payment of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction – (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under section 27, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Court under the section or to prefer or prosecute a revision petition under section 46 against an order may by the Court on application under section 27 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 and other charges due in respect of the premises up to 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. (2) The deposit of the rent and other charges under sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed and shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed for the service of the notice referred to in sub-section (5). (3) Where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent and other charges to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1), the Court shall, on application made to it 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. (3) Where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent and other charges to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1), the Court shall, on application made to it 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. (4) If any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Court, the District Judge or the High Court as the case may be, shall unless the tenant has shown sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises or dismiss the appeal or revision petition, as the case may be. (5) When any deposit is made under sub-section (1) the Court, the District Judge or the High Court, as the case may by, shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord in the prescribed manner and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in this behalf. This Court in: (i) In Shiva Vs. B. Devanna reported in ILR 1980 (1) Kar 706 it is held: “”9. The next question for consideration is whether a revision petition preferred without depositing the arrears of rent is maintainable. As held by this court in Shivalingappa Niranjunappa Shetty vs. Dattu Appanna Kumar, Ayesha Biddiqua Begum vs. V.V. Sheik Kutty, Ranga Naika vs. Saraswathi, S.P. Bagali vs. Srisailappa and in the case of Shevade Canera Works, 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. We agree with the views expressed in the above decisions and hold that 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 and is not entitled to prefer a revision petition under section 50 of the Act against an eviction order. 10. 10. However, we should add that even in cases where the tenant has failed to comply with section 29(1) of the Act a further safeguard is given to him under sub-section (4) of section 29. He can show sufficient cause against passing an order of eviction or dismissal of revision petition. Such reasons could be other than the one relating to nonpayment or non deposit of rent or delayed deposit as held by this court in T. Janardhana vs. R. Krishnappa and I.P. Hunsraj vs. G.S. Pannalal. The court has to pass appropriate orders depending on the facts of each case, as to whether the tenant has shown sufficient cause against the passing of an order adverse to him. Therefore 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”. (ii) Syed Abdul Wadood Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1987 (4) Kar. 3679 has held as follows: “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. Section 29(4) is not an innovation of the year 1961. The principle underlying Section 29(4) governed the eviction proceedings against the tenant even before the advent of Rent Control legislations. It is based on high equity and was found in Section 114 of the T.P. Act.” (iii) In Tippanna Laxman Waghmode Vs. Godavari Bai reported in ILR 1990 Kar. 4054 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held to the following effect: “"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. Godavari Bai reported in ILR 1990 Kar. 4054 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held to the following effect: “"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 dismissal…. If 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 sufficiency of the cause”. (iv) P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti reported in AIR 1998 SC 2979 14. The words in sub-section (I) “or to prefer or prosecute a revision petition under Section 50” encompass two stages. First is at the threshold when 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. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the liability of the tenant under Section 29(1) of the Act would come into operation only after the Court determines the amount to be paid. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the liability of the tenant under Section 29(1) of the Act would come into operation only after the Court determines the amount to be paid. This argument is based on sub-Section (3) but the contingency under that sub-section would arise only where there is a dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or to be deposited. In this case the appellant filed revision petition on 20-4-1991. High Court has noticed that “admittedly, the tenant did not deposit the rent on 20-4-1991 when the revision petition was filed before the learned District Judge”. 22. Sub-section (1) of Section 45 mandates (i) deposit of rent during the pendency of the proceedings for eviction, (ii) depositing of rents while preferring a revision petition and prosecuting the revision petition. Sub-section (2) requires that deposit has to be made within the time and manner prescribed and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed. Sub-section (3) mandates that where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent and other charges to be paid or deposited under sub-Section (1) the Court shall on application made to it either by tenant or landlord and after making summary enquiry can determine the rent so payable or to be deposited. Sub-Section (4) mandates that if tenants fails to deposit the rent, the court namely either the District Court or the Revisional Court as the case may be unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary would stop further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises as the case may be. 23. The Court exercising the jurisdiction under Section 27(2) and 45(1) would get jurisdiction to order for eviction only if the Jural relationship of landlord and tenant is either admitted or established. When jural relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, or it is in dispute or in doubt the Court will have to necessarily consider and decide the question of jural relationship. When jural relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, or it is in dispute or in doubt the Court will have to necessarily consider and decide the question of jural relationship. It is in this background Section 43 of the Rent Act has been inserted under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 where the dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant exists namely a serious dispute were to exist then subjective satisfaction of the Court with reference to the documents produced by the landlord namely the lease deed, rent receipt or any other documents evidencing acknowledgment of rent would be sufficient to hold that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant and for the said purpose Section 43 would clothe the rent Court to adjudicate on the basis of prima facie evidence to ascertain and consider as to whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant or to hold otherwise in the absence thereof and then direct the parties to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their rights. 24. The very same question had come up for consideration by this Court while considering the lis between the parties herein in CRP 1048/1997 and other connected matters whereunder following two questions was formulated: (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; It has been held therein that reason for not depositing the rent and to show sufficient cause against rejection of revision petition would arise only when the tenant does not pay or deposit upto date rents on or before time fixed by Court or at the time of the filing of the revision petition and it was held that mere non deposit of the rent there can be no automatic dismissal of the revision petition. It was held that it would be incumbent upon the Court considering the revision petition to examine the cause shown by the revision petitioner and adjudicate the same before either rejecting the revision petition for noncompliance or otherwise and it was answered in favour of the landlords holding that if the benefit of Section 29 are to be denied to the landlords and if tenants can avoid penal consequences of non-compliance with Section 29(1) merely because revision petition is admitted and Section 29(1) itself will be rendered otiose. In the said judgment referred to supra at paragraph 18 it has been held to the following effect: “Therefore, even if the revision petitioner fails to fulfil the mandatory requirement of Section 29(1), by failing to pay or deposit upto 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”. 25. In this background when the matter came to be remanded to the Revision Court, the Revisional Court reconsidered the matter afresh and curiously it did not adjudicate upon the cause shown by the tenants for not depositing the rents and proceeded to hear on the basis that rent Court had already arrived at a conclusion and given a finding that there existed jural relationship of landlord and tenant and hence, revision is not maintainable. It is to be noticed that question of payment of rent and existence of jural relationship run parallel. However, the existence of jural relationship is one aspect and payment of rent is another aspect. On the basis of evidence that has been let in by the parties if the Court were to come to a conclusion that there existed jural relationship of landlord and tenant it need not ipso facto hold that rents are due automatically inasmuch as there might be a valid defence for the tenant to contend: (i) that either rents have been paid to the predecessor in title of the petitioner/landlord; or (ii) to any other rival claimants; or (iii) it has been deposited in any other Court, proceedings or other authority; and thus show sufficient cause for not depositing/paying. In such an event the Court adjudicating as to the payment/deposit of rent is required to consider the plea or cause shown which may be put forward by the respondent and examine whether it is a bonafide payment/deposit and then come to a conclusion as to there being arrears of rents or otherwise, and may either grant time for payment/deposit or permit the revision petitioner to prosecute the revision petition without deposit. 26. In this background if the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined, it is noticed, that trial Court at paragraph-9 had considered the issue regarding jural relationship between the parties and has held that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, to arrive at a conclusion that rents that is said to have been paid by the respondents tenants to Jadedevara Mutt, trial Court has given a finding that it would not enure to the benefit of the tenant since it is paid to a wrong person. Respondents/tenants have produced in all 137 rent receipts for the period from 11-5-1976 to 26-12-1994 to contend that rents had been paid to Jadedevara Mutt. Admittedly there is a lis existing between the parties namely Jadedevara Mutt on the one hand and the respondents 1 to 5 herein who were the petitioners/landlords before the rent Court as to the ownership and possession of the property. In fact it is to be noticed that litigation dates back to the year 1899 as seen from the records. When this being the position and the finding of the trial Court regarding existence of jural relationship has been assailed by the tenant in revision petition, the revisional Court has misdirected itself in examining only the issue of jural relationship between the parties without considering the effect of payment made by the revision petitioners to Jadedevara Mutt, particularly in the backdrop of inter-se litigation between the parties. It is no doubt true that revision petitioners herein for reasons best known to them have not examined any witnesses to establish that rent receipts Ex.R-1 (137 receipts) have been issued by Jadedevara Mutt. However, rent receipts for the period 1976 to 1994 have been produced by revision petitioners which according to the tenants is the prime reason for non payment of the rents. However, rent receipts for the period 1976 to 1994 have been produced by revision petitioners which according to the tenants is the prime reason for non payment of the rents. At para 19 of the revisional Court order it has been held as follows: “I have gone through the observations made. It is clear that the lower Court has given finding regarding the Revision petitioners are the tenants and the Respondents are the Landlords of the petition schedule property.” It is only on this basis revisional Court proceeded to consider the claim of the revision petitioner about maintainability of the petition without examining its correctness which was under challenge. It is also held by the Revisional Court that payment of rent to Jadedevara Mutt by the tenant does not in any way help the revision petitioners and it has nothing to do with this case. This finding suffers from infirmity on facts and error of jurisdiction for the reason that lis between the parties about the ownership of the property and the person entitled to receive the rent was under adjudication by a competent Civil Court in O.S.No.217/1986 and this being a cause which has been shown according to the revision petitioners/tenants before the Revisional Court it ought to have been examined by the Revisional Court as whether it would constitute sufficient cause or not. It would be necessary to extract direction given by this Court in HRRP No.1048/1997 which reads as under: “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.” In the background of this direction it was incumbent upon the Revisional Court to examine and/or ought to have called upon the revisional petitioners to show cause as to why revision petition should not be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 45 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, inasmuch as there can be instances where jural relationship between the parties are admitted and there may be dispute with regard to quantum of rent rate of rent or the period for which the rent is due and also there might be cases where the tenant may for bonafide reason claim to absolve himself from payment of rent twice if any and it may be possible for the tenant to demonstrate that trial Court had erred under such circumstances and request the Revisional Court to consider this issue. In such circumstances the Revisional Court is not precluded to examine whether it would be amount to a sufficient cause or otherwise for rejecting or not rejecting the petition for non-payment/deposit of rent. The protection which would be available to a tenant under Section 29 would be to a genuine tenant and a person who is having a genuine defence to point out and not to a unscrupulous or recalcitrant tenant. In order to protect such of those tenants who would have sufficient cause for not depositing the rents a protection zone has been created by statute under Section (4) of Section 29 as succour and at the same time it would also protect the landlords from such of those tenants who would raise unrighteous pleas and to countenance such pleas. Sub-section (4) of Section 29 will also come to their aid. 27. In so far as the judgment relied upon by the learned advocates for the respondent/landlords is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. Sub-section (4) of Section 29 will also come to their aid. 27. In so far as the judgment relied upon by the learned advocates for the respondent/landlords is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. (i) Regarding Deshpande’s case ( AIR 1998 SC 2979 ) It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord that this judgment is subsequent to the judgment of HRRP No.1048/1997 and it is to be held that for filing of the revision petition, the tenant has to mandatorily deposit rent irrespective of his defence. A perusal of the said judgment would reveal that in the said case the jural relationship of landlord and tenant had been admitted. In a case of admission of jural relationship of landlord and tenant it would not clothe the tenant to contend that he need not deposit the rent which is adjudicated to be due. In the instant case, the very finding with regard to the Jural relationship as also payment of rent is in question before the Revisional Court. Hence, the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. (ii) In the case of Lakshminarayana Sony and Another Vs. C. Basha ( 2008 (4) KCCR 2587 ) a plea was set up by the tenant that by virtue of a lesser interest having blossomed itself into a larger interest namely of an agreement holder he ceased to be a tenant and hence he need not pay the rent. However, this Court held that remedy for such a tenant is to seek for specific performance of the agreement in a appropriate suit and such defence would not entitle him to claim that he need not pay arrears of rent and absolve of his liability. Such a situation does not arise in the present case inasmuch as in the instant case specific contention of the tenant is that Jadedevara Mutt is the owner and they have been paying the rent to them from the beginning till date. This issue regarding payment of rent by tenants to Jadedevara Mutt is required to be examined by revisional Court and without giving a finding on this issue would defeat the very purpose of enactment. Hence, in this background it is held that said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. This issue regarding payment of rent by tenants to Jadedevara Mutt is required to be examined by revisional Court and without giving a finding on this issue would defeat the very purpose of enactment. Hence, in this background it is held that said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. (iii) In so far as T.R. Jagannath’s case ( 2008 (4) KCCR 2429 ) it was found by this Court that similar plea was earlier raised and this Court while disposing the revision petition had held tenant was in arrears of rent. In the said judgment not only finding has been given as to the existence of jural relationship but it has also been determined that tenant was in arrears of rent and hence this Court was of the opinion that same issue cannot be reagitated once again. Even in the said case at paragraph 21 a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that if the explanation has been offered by the tenant it is the duty of the Court to consider the same on merits determining the sufficiency of cause and had remanded the matter back to the trial Court. (iv) In so far the case of Saleem vs. Syed Yousuff & ors reported in 2010 (1) AIR Kar R 299 the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was that of the son-in-law and the father-in-law where it was claimed there exists no jural relationship. However on facts it was found that there existed jural relationship of landlord and tenant. In the instance case there is a third party who has stepped in to contend they have received rents from the revision petitioners and had issued the rent receipts. In the background of the facts peculiar to the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment in Salem’s case cannot be held to be applicable. In Saleem’s case the order was passed under Section 43 where on enquiry it was found there existed jural relationship. However, in the instant case it is only on the solitary admission of one of the tenants trial Court had come to a conclusion there existed jural relationship of landlord and tenant which was assailed by the tenant before the Revisional Court. FINDINGS Re. However, in the instant case it is only on the solitary admission of one of the tenants trial Court had come to a conclusion there existed jural relationship of landlord and tenant which was assailed by the tenant before the Revisional Court. FINDINGS Re. Point No:1 Payment/deposit of Rent as mandated under Section 45 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 would be Mandatory: (i) When there is admitted jural relationship of Landlord and tenant between parties; (ii) When respondent/tenant has recognized the petitioner/Landlord and has paid the rent at any point of time; (iii) There are prima facie documents to evidence payment of rent at any point of time; (iv) When there is a finding of trial Court on this issue and same is not questioned in higher forum. And not under other circumstances as is found in the instance case. Re: Point No:2 The High Court, District Court or Civil Court as the case may be is required to examine the cause shown against rejection and if no cause is forthcoming would result in summary rejection. Re: Point No: 3 In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that order of the Revisional Court suffers from error on facts and also on law and requires to be set aside. Accordingly the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 3-12-2009 passed in HRCRP.Nos.16/1996, 17/1996, 31/1996 and 26/1996 are hereby set aside by holding that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent tenant had contended by showing cause and this cause shown has not been considered by the Revisional Court as to whether it is a sufficient cause for dismissing the revision petitions. In view of the same the matter requires to be remitted back to the Revisional Court to reconsider as to whether cause shown with reference to the rents alleged to have been paid by the revisional petitioners would amount to payment/deposit and would constitute sufficient cause as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 45 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and then proceed to consider the revision petitions on merits if necessary and in accordance with law. With these observation, the following order is passed: ORDER The revision petitions are allowed. With these observation, the following order is passed: ORDER The revision petitions are allowed. The order passed by the District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Shimoga in HRCRP Nos.16/1996, 17/1996, 31/1996 and 26/1996 dated 3-12-2009 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the revisional Court with a direction to consider as to whether the cause shown by the revision petitioners namely having paid rents to Jadedevara would constitute sufficient cause or otherwise as contemplated under Section 45(4) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and then proceed to dispose the revision petitions on merits if necessary and in accordance with law. No order as to costs. The said exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order excluding ensuing summer vacation holidays.