DADMIYA MOHAMMADSAHEB NOMIN Vs. AKTAB AHMAD NIJAMODDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitions are tenants. They have challenged the order of the First Additional Distiict Judge. Belgaum, in HR. CRPs. 60, 47, 46, 45 and 49 of 1989; by the said order revision petitions filed under Section 50 of tha Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act- for short) have bean dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners therein did not comply with the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Act.

(2.) At the out-set it has to be saidthat it is too late in the day for the petitioners to contend that Sec. 29(1) is not applicable to the revision petitions filed under Section 50 of the Act. This Court in Shiva v Devanna (ILR 1980(1) Kar 706) after reviewing several other decisions has held that unless a tenant against whom proceedings for eviction is instituted under Section 21 of the Act, deposits with the court or pays to the landlord all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises upto the date of payment add continues to pay or deposit the rent as and when it becomes due thereafter, has no right to contest the eviction petition and he cannot file appeal or revision. The said view stands reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Medical Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., v K. C. Ajit (ILR 1984(2) Kar. 510).

(3.) This being the legal positionthe learned District Judge, was justified in holding that the revision petipetition filed without complying with the provisions of Section 29(1} of the Act, were not maintainable.