SHIVA Vs. DEVANNA B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition presented before this Court by the petitioner tenant under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an order of eviction made against him by civil Judge, Bangalore, has come up before us pursuant to an order of reference made by Puttaswamy, J., under Section 9 of the Karnatka High Court Act. The case raises the following important question of law concerning the interpretation of Section 29 of the Act :

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner is a tenant of a shop premises belonging to the respondent in the city of Bangalore on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. The respondent filed an eviction petition under section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Act, i.e., on the ground of arrears of rent and also on the ground that the respondent required the premises for his own business. The arrears of rent due by the petitioner as alleged by the respondent was a sum of Rs. 1,320/- for the period commencing from 1st March, 1971 to 31st May, 1974. The petitioner resisted the petition by denying that he was in arrears of rent and also questioned the truthfulness of the claim of the respondent that he required the premises for bonafide use and occupation. The learned Civil Judge after considering the evidence on record held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and further that the requirement of the premises by the respondent for his own use and occupation was bonafide. Accordingly, he passed an order of eviction on 14th March, 1978. The eviction was ordered only on the ground that the premises was required by the respondent for his bonafide use and occupation, and not on the ground of arrears of rent, because the notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner demanding payment of arrears of rent was defective, in that it fell short by about 3 days to 2 months' notice required to be given under Clause (a) of Section 21(1) of the Act. He, however, granted 'six' months' time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The petitioner presented this revision petition before this Court on 13th July, 1978 without depositing the arrears of rent found to be due from him by the learned civil Judge, the revision petition was admitted on 18th August, 1978 and thereafter, his Court granted an ex parte order of stay as prayed for by the petitioner. On 5th December, 1978 the respondent made an application (I.A.II) praying for dismissal of the revision petition on the ground that he had not deposited the arrears of rent found to be due from 1st March, 1971, and therefore he was not entitled to prefer a revision petition in view of Section 29(1) of Act. Even thereafter the petitioner filed objection to I.A.II. and disputed that he was in arrears of rent. However, some time thereafter, he deposited the rent. When the matter came up for final hearing before Puttaswamy, J. learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the revision petition preferred by the petitioner without paying the arrears of rent to respondent or depositing it in Court is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine relying on the ruling given by Nesargi, J., in Shevade Camera Works v. Ramachandra,1972 2 KarLJ 169, following two earlier decisions of this Court. Learned Judge felt that as the Act is primarily enacted to safeguard the interests of the tenants, Section 29(1) of the Act should be held to be directory provision and not a mandatory and the failure to deposit the rents found due by the petitioner was not fatal to the revision petition. But as he considered such a view would conflict with the view taken in the case of Shevade Camera Works he referred the revision petition to a Division Bench under Section 9 of the High Court Act. Accordingly the matter has come up before us for hearing.

(3.) Sri Krishna Bhatt learned counsel for the petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. He contended that the revision petition presented by the petitioner is not maintainable as he did so without paying to the respondent or depositing the arrears of rent found due from him by the Court below. He argued that paying or depositing the entire arrears of rent including the arrears prior to the date of presentation of the petition including the arrears legally due though barred by limitation was a condition precedent for preferring the revision petition. In support of this, he relied on the two decisions of the Supreme Court, one in Khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir, 1978 AIR(SC) 287 and other in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, 1978 AIR(SC) 955 He also relied on several decisions of this Court, to which reference will be made latter in support of his contention that without depositing arrears of rent the revision petition is not maintainable.