MOHAMMAD BASHEERAHMAD Vs. HAKEEM NOORULLA SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The only dispute sought to be agitated in this appeal is whether the order of eviction passed under Section 29 (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is valid and proper. It appears that initially the respondent landlord initiated a proceeding for eviction of the appellant tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the disputed premises. As during the pendency of such proceeding, the appellant tenant did not deposit rents regularly, the application under Section 29 (1) of the said Rent Act was made by the respondent landlord. The tenant also made an application for a direction to get the arrears adjusted against an advance of Rs. 50,000. 00 given to the landlord. Such application, however, was rejected by the trial court and a direction was given to the depositor to pay Rs. 4,100. 00 to the landlord towards arrears as such within a specified time after determining the arrears standing on the date of the order. Such amount has been paid but during the continuance of the eviction proceeding, according to the finding made by the court below the tenant failed to deposit or make payment to the landlord of the rents regularly without offering any just explanation as to why delay had been caused in making such deposits. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed under Section 29 (4) of the Rent Control Act. Such order was assailed in a revision petition before the High court by the tenant appellant and it was contended that the deposit should have been adjusted against arrears and if such adjustment takes place there could not have been any default. Such contention has not been accepted by the High court. It was also contended that the landlord was not entitled to accept any advance from the tenant and such contention has also not been accepted by the High court. In our view, the question as to whether the landlord was entitled to take an advance of Rs. 50,000. 00 was not required to be decided in disposing of the application under Section 29 (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act particularly when the claim for adjustment against the advance was rejected earlier by the court and such order was not challenged. As it has been found on fact that the tenant had failed to deposit the arrears during the continuance of the proceeding without any just cause, we do not think that any interference is called for. This appeal therefore fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.

(3.) However, a prayer has been made to allow some time to the petitioner to vacate the disposed (sic) premises. Considering the fact that the tenant is running a shop in the disputed premises, we allow the tenant to remain in possession of the disputed premises till 31/10/1997 on the condition that he will go on making payment @ Rs. 600. 00 towards the mesne profits of the disputed premises by the 7th of the following months. Such amount should be paid w. e. f. the month of April 1997 and the mesne profit for April to be deposited by 7th May. The mesne profits for the month of October 1997 however is to be paid before 31/10/1997 or before vacating the premises. As it is not disputed that a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 was paid to the landlord as security it is directed that the respondent landlord will refund the said sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 on the date of vacating the disputed premises. If the tenant fails to vacate the premises within the aforesaid time-frame, liberty is given to the petitioner to draw the attention of this court for appropriate action.