K RAGHUNATH Vs. CHANDRASEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgement of the High Court of karnataka at Bangalore dated 13th April, 2000 in H. R. R. P. No. 227 of 2000. The appellant before us is a tenant and the respondents are the landlords. By the impugned judgement and, order the High Court has dismissed the Revision petition preferred by the appellant holding that the arrears of rent had not been paid or deposited by the appellant as required, in the manner contemplated by Section 29 of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before filing of the revision Petition, and that no explanation had been given for not depositing the rent before filing the Revision Petition under Section 50 (1) of the Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondent-landlords filed a petition for eviction of the appellant under Section 22 (l) (h) and 22 (l) (p) of the Act which was disposed of by the Small Causes Court allowing the petition and passing an order of eviction against the appellant by judgement and order of February 4, 2000. The appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the High Court on 6th April, 2000 under Section 50 (1) of the Act. Before preferring the Revision Petition he had neither deposited nor paid the arrears of rent, but he sent the same by money order to the landlords on 11th April, 2000. The matter came up before the High Court on 13th April, 2000 when the High Court passed the impugned order dismissing the Revision Petition for non compliance with requirements of Section 29 of the Act.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant argued before us that there was, in fact, no delay in filing the Revision Petition as also in payment of arrears of rent and therefore, the High Court was in error in dismissing the Revision petition on that ground. Counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the High Court and drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of the Act.