K A GRACE Vs. M S LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who suffered a decree of eviction from the petition schedule premises in HRC. 2800/92 on the file of the XVI Addl. Small causes Judge, Bangalore, filed this petition questioning the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Court. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent appeared and contended that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited the arrears of rent when he first filed the Revision petition on 25. 6. 99, which is a mandatory requirement of law. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of this objection, arguments were heard in regard to the maintainability of this petition.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed this petition on 25. 6. 99. The office raised an objection that the petitioner had not produced any proof to show that he has paid the arrears of rent. Therefore, he has taken back the file and sent a sum of Rs. 2,400/-on 8. 7. 99 which is said to be the arrears of rent to the respondent by money order and re-presented the petition on 9. 7. 99. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner preferred the Revision Petition on 25. 6. 99 as on that date he had not deposited or paid or sent the arrears by money order to the respondent. Hence, the petition is liable to be rejected. Form No. 14 filed for examination report 'among other objections, endorsement as to the result of examination reads thus: " (4) Whether upto date rents, have been paid or deposited to be clarified. " petitioner also admits that there was arrears of Rs. 2,400/- as on 25. 6. 99 which he sent by money order on 8. 7. 99.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that having realised the fact that he has not paid the arrears of rent, he had taken back the file and after sending the money, order, he filed it. Therefore, re-representation of the petition shall be construed that the same was represented after due compliance of the provisions of law. In view of this, it is relevant to refer to Section 29 (1) of the act which reads: