ORDER : W.P. Nos. 109636 and 109637 of 2016 are filed by the petitioner in HRC Appeal No.18/2016 challenging the order dt. 10-08-2016 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in the aforesaid HRC Appeal No. 18/2016 as per Annexure ‘H’. Whereas W.P.Nos.109634 and 109635 of 2016 are filed by the petitioners in HRC Appeal No.17/2016 challenging the order dt. 10-08-2016 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in the aforesaid HRC Appeal No. 17/2016 as per Annexure ‘H’. 2. The issue involved in all these petitions being one and the same, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. It is to be noted that petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the eviction orders passed by the Trial Court before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, are wrongly described as HRC Appeal instead of HRC Petition. Therefore, they are herein after referred to as HRC Revision Petitions. 4. Heard Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Anthony R. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the writ petitions and Annexures produced along with the writ petitions and orders passed by the Courts below. 5. The case of the petitioners is, they became the tenants under one Sri. Saraf and his family members in respect of the petition schedule premises on monthly rents. The respondent after purchasing the building including the petition schedule premises from Sri. Saraf and his family members through a registered sale deed dated 15-02-2010, issued notice to the petitioners informing them that respondent has purchased the building including the petition schedule premises from their previous owner and called upon the petitioners to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises in their favour. Since petitioners did not comply with the notice, respondent initiated proceedings under Sec. 27(2)(e)(h) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (herein after referred to as Rent Act) before the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Belagavi, seeking eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule premises. The petitioners contested the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent by filing statement of objections. The petitioners contested the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent by filing statement of objections. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, by order dated 06-04- 2016 allowed the eviction petition and directed the petitioners to deliver actual vacant possession of the petition premises to the respondent within one month from the date of the order. Petitioners aggrieved by the eviction orders passed by the Trial Court challenged the same by preferring revision petitions in HRC Appeal 18/2016 and HRC Appeal 17/2016 before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, along with applications I.A.No.1 under Sec. 46(2) of the Rent Act seeking stay for the operation and execution of the eviction order passed by the Trial Court. When the Revisional Court declined to consider the stay applications on the ground revision petitions as filed by the petitioners without depositing the rent are not maintainable and no stay can be granted, the petitioners made applications under Sec.45 of the Rent Act, seeking permission of the Revisional Court to grant permission to deposit the rents. The respondent resisted both I.As. 1 and 2 on the ground, petitioners should have filed the applications for seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rent along with the main petition. The Revisional Court by impugned order dated 10-08-2016 has rejected both the applications. 6. Sri. Sanjay S.Katageri, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits, the petitioners even before the commencement of the proceedings of the Revision Petition and before passing any order in the Revision Petitions, have sought for permission of the Revisional Court to deposit the rent by filing I.A.No.2 under Sec. 45 of the Rent Act. The Revisional Court without considering this material aspect of the matter, has committed an error in dismissing both I.As. 1 and 2 and therefore learned Counsel prays for allowing the petitions by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court by allowing I.As. 1 and 2. 7. Sri. Anthony R. Rodrigues, learned Counsel for the respondent submits, the revision petitions as filed by the petitioners without depositing the rent are not maintainable. 1 and 2 and therefore learned Counsel prays for allowing the petitions by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court by allowing I.As. 1 and 2. 7. Sri. Anthony R. Rodrigues, learned Counsel for the respondent submits, the revision petitions as filed by the petitioners without depositing the rent are not maintainable. It is only after the Revisional Court declining to consider the stay application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 46(2) of the Rent Act, petitioners have made applications under Sec. 45 of the Rent Act seeking permission of the Revisional Court to deposit the rent and therefore Revisional Court was justified in rejecting both I.As. 1 and 2. He further submits, the order passed by the Revisional Court is in accordance with the judgment rendered by this Court in similar cases. As such, no interference is called for and therefore he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. Learned Counsel further submits, respondent is a private limited company. It has purchased the building for the purpose of constructing a commercial complex. When it had purchased the building, there were sixteen tenants. Of them, fourteen tenants have already vacated the premises in their occupation and delivered vacant possession of the premises in favour of the respondent and respondent has commenced the construction of complex in the portion vacated by the other tenants and it is unable to carry on further construction as petitioners are dodging the proceedings without having any merit in the case. Therefore, he submits in the event of this Court allowing the writ petitions and granting permission to the petitioners to deposit rent and directing the Revisional Court to dispose of the main Petitions on merits, it may be done so subject to petitioner depositing up-to-date rent by way of damages at the rate of Rs.170/- per month which he was paying to the vendor of the respondent and the Revisional Court may be directed to dispose of the Revision Petitions within two months from today. 8. Admittedly, petitioners became tenants of the petition schedule premises under the previous owner of the building viz., Saraf and his family members. 8. Admittedly, petitioners became tenants of the petition schedule premises under the previous owner of the building viz., Saraf and his family members. Respondent after purchasing the building including the petition schedule premises in the occupation of the petitioners got issued notice to the petitioners, informing them that it has purchased the building and called upon them to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises in its favour. Since petitioners failed to comply with the notice, respondent initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners before the Trial Court seeking eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule premises under Sec. 27(2)(e)(h) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act. The same was resisted by the petitioners. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record by order dated 06-04-2016 allowed the petitions and directed the petitioners to deliver actual vacant possession of the premises in favour of the respondent within one month from the date of the order. Petitioners who stated to have been aggrieved by the said eviction order of the Trial Court and wanted to challenge the same by filing revisions before the Revisional Court, ought to have filed it along with an application seeking permission of the Revisional Court to deposit the rents. On the other hand, petitioners filed the revision petitions along with an application under Sec.46(2) of the Rent Act seeking stay for the operation and execution of the eviction order passed by the Trial Court. It was only when the Revisional Court declined to consider the stay application in the absence of deposit of rent by the petitioners, petitioners made an application under Sec. 45 of the Rent Act seeking permission of the Revisional Court to deposit the rents. It is settled principle of law, that once an eviction order is passed against a person and if the said person wants to challenge the said eviction order, he has to challenge it by depositing the rents in respect of the premises in his occupation. The Revisional Court rejected both the I.As., holding application under Sec. 45 of the Rent Act seeking permission to deposit the rent should have been filed along with the main petition and not subsequent to filing of the revision petitions, that too when the Court declined to consider the stay applications. The Revisional Court rejected both the I.As., holding application under Sec. 45 of the Rent Act seeking permission to deposit the rent should have been filed along with the main petition and not subsequent to filing of the revision petitions, that too when the Court declined to consider the stay applications. Fact remains, pursuant to the notice issued by the Revisional Court, the respondent – landlord has entered appearance in the Revision Petition and parties are contesting the revision petitions. It is also a fact that, before the Revisional Court passing any order, the petitioners realising their mistake have filed I.A.2 under Sec. 45 of the Rent Act seeking permission of the Revisional Court to deposit the rents. In view of the same, justice would be met, if petitioners are granted permission to deposit up-to-date rents by way of damages at the rate of Rs.170/- per month and directing the Revisional Court to dispose of the Revision Petitions expeditiously. 9. Hence, the following order : The writ petitions are allowed in part. The impugned order dated 10-08-2016 passed on I.A.1 filed under Sec. 46(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and I.A.2 under Sec. 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 in HRC Appeal Nos. 18 and 17 of 2016 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, are hereby set aside. Consequently, both I.As. 1 and 2 are allowed, subject to following conditions : Petitioners – tenants shall deposit up-to-date rents at the rate of Rs.170/- per month by way of damages before the Revisional Court within two weeks from today and the Revisional Court shall order for investing the same in any Nationalised Bank. Both the parties are hereby directed to be present before the Revisional Court either personally or through their learned Counsel at 11.00 a.m. on 27-06-2017 without expecting further notice from the Revisional Court in HRC Appeals 18/2016 and 17/2016. If petitioners fail to deposit upto date rent as indicated herein above, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court gets revived automatically. Both the parties shall extend full co-operation with the Revisional Court to dispose of the main Revision Petitions within two months from 27-06-2017. The rents/damages ordered to be deposited by the petitioners before the Revisional Court shall be disbursed as per the order to be passed by the Revisional Court while disposing of the Revision Petitions.