D K PANDEY Vs. ABDUL AZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the order of the High court of Karnataka dated 24/10/1986. This order in question was passed in a revision petition filed by the appellant under S. 50 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act. The respondent had instituted a proceeding under S. 21 (l) (h) of the Act in the court of Small Causes Judge, Bangalore being H. RC. No. 3590 of 1983. This suit in question was instituted by Shri Abdul Azeez, the respondent herein for recovery of possession of the premises in question being No. 22, 5th Main, 6th Cross, Vasanthappa Block, Gangenahalli, Matadhalli Post, Bangalore. The dispute relates to the first floor of the premises in question. The plea of the appellant is that he became originally tenant of one Mohd. Omar Khan in respect of the first floor. Later on it is alleged by the appellant that the landlord Mohd. Omar Khan introduced one Shri Abdul Azeez, respondent herein as his brother, who would collect the rent on behalf of Mohd. Omar Khan. Later on the respondent started living in the ground floor of the premises in question which according to the appellant was done at the instance of Mohd. Omar Khan, whom he believed to be his brother. The appellant states that he had been paying all rent to Abdul Azeez up to September 1985. After September 1985 Omar Khakhan demanded the rent which the appellant stated had been paid to Abdul Azeez. the representative of Mohd. Omar Khan. Thereafter he had been paying rent from September 198 5/04/1986 to Mohd. Omar Khan. On his failure to pay rent to Abdul Azeez. Abdul Azeez filed petition under S. 29 (1) (h) of the Act. Before the learned Judge, Small Cause court, the appellant had made an application under Order 14 Rule 12 read with S. 151 for framing the issue as to who was the real landlord in respect of the premises in dispute. The learned Judge, Small Cause court did not accept this prayer. The learned Judge, Small Cause court was of the view that who was the landlord in respect of the premises in question would be decided in the main petition. On that order of the learned Judge of Small Cause court, Bangalore, the appellant filed a revision application before the High court. The High court by the impugned order disposed of the application. The High court's impugned order reads as follows:

(2.) S. 29 (4) of the Act upon which the High court's order is based entails the liability on the tenant to deposit the rent, and if he fails, stop all proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises or dismiss the appeal or revision petition. The appellant's case is that he has regularly paid rent in question, until Abdul Azeez was introduced he has been paying rent to the landlord Omar Khan. After Abdul Azeez was introduced, he has paid rent to Abdul Azeez as the representative of Mohd. Omar Khan. From September 198 5/04/1986, Mohd. Omar Khan had demanded rent as landlord, so he paid rent to him and did not pay rent to Abdul Azeez, the respondent herein. On the proceeding being instituted from April 198 6/08/1986. the appellant deposited the rent in the court. There is no dispute about that. The High court records this. Therefore it appears that there was no failure on his part to deposit the rent. S. 19 of the said Act deals with right of the tenant to deposit rent in certain cases. Ss. (1) of S. 19 of the Act provides that where the address of the landlord or his authorised agent is not known to the tenant or the landlord refuses to accept, the tenant may deposit the rent lawfully payable to the landlord in respect of the premises in certain manner indicated therein. Ss. (3) of S. 19 of the Act deals with where any doubt or dispute arises as to the person who is entitled to receive the rent for the premises and states that the tenant may deposit such rent in court in such manner as may be prescribed and may continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises in court in the same manner. Thereafter an enquiry indicated in Ss. (3) of S. 19 of the Act is contemplated.

(3.) The appellant in this case had no occasion to invoke S. 19 of the Act. Firstly because there was no question or doubt for his payment of rent to the landlord through his representative. Abdul Azeez who was introduced by Mohd. Omar Khan who later on claimed to have become the landlord. In any event there is no finding that Abdul Azeez and not Omar Khan, is the actual landlord. The appropriate course of action would have been in such a situation for the court to make the finding as to who was the landlord before making order under S. 29 (4) of the Act.