H N SRINIVASA Vs. G R NARASIMHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RESPONDENT LANDLORD WHO ARE ON RECORD HAVE FILED THIS APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TENANT-PETITIONER HAS NOT PAID THE .ENTS FROM 1-4-1983. THE RATE OF RENT IS RS, 200/-PER MONTH. THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WAS FILED ON 8-2-1990. THIS APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 23-7-1990 AND A COPY WAS SERVED ON THE LEARNED COUNSEL ON THE VERY DAY FOR FILING STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS. THE MATTER WAS BEING ADJOURNED MORE THAN ONCE. ULTIMATELY, ON 21-8-1990, THE I. A. WAS ADJOURNED TO TODAY. WHEN THE MATTER IS TAKEN UP, THE COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL HAS FILED A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT IN DEFAULT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE LEARNED COUNSEL STATED BEFORE ME THAT THE ARREARS OF RENT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THIS COURT LAST WEEK. THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IS DATED 27-8-1990. NOWHERE IN THE BODY OF THE AFFIDAVIT, IT IS STATED THAT THE DEPOSIT HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS COURT. THE DETAILS OF THE DEPOSIT IS ALSO NOT FORTHCOMING.

(2.) THE PRACTICE IS GROWING IN THISCOURT, OF THE PETITIONERS (TENANTS) ASSERTING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DEPOSITING THE RENT IN THE COURT WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY DETAILS TO THE LANDLORD WHO IS ENTITLED TO DRAW THE, AMOUNT. EVEN THOUGH SECTION 29(2) READ WITH SUB-SECTION (5) THEREOF AND RULE 9 OF THE KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL RULES REQUIRE A NOTICE TO THE LANDLORD EITHER OF THE DEPOSIT OR OF THE STEPS THAT IS BEING TAKEN TO MAKE DEPOSIT, THE SAME IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED IN MANY CASES. AT THE LAST MOMENT IN THIS COURT AN ASSERTION IS BEING MADE THAT THE RENT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED. THE RESULTANT INCONVENIENCE AND MANY A TIMES THE DELAY CAUSED BY SUCH AN ASSERTION IS NOT CONSIDERED BUY ANY ONE CONCERNED. I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW THE PETITIONER CAN MAKE A DEPOSIT WITHOUT INTIMATING THE RESPONDENTS OR THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS. THE PROCEDURAL LAW IS NOT A WEAPON JUST TO CAUSE INCONVENIENCE OR TO HARASS THE OPPOSITE PARTY. THE PROCEDURAL LAW IS MEANT TO HAVE A TRUE COURSE OF JUSTICE. UNLESS A STRICT VIEW OF THIS VIOLATION OF SECTION 29(2) READ WITH SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 29 AND RULE 9 IS TAKEN BY THIS COURT, I THINK THIS KIND OF DELAY WILL BE REPEATED PERPETUALLY.

(3.) IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS ALREADYNOTED THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MATERIAL TO DRAW THAT THE PETITIONER HAS PAID THE RENT. THE STATEMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER THAT THE RENT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THIS COURT ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE TENANT HAS BEEN IN ARREARS. IN THE AFFIDA-VJT, NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS SHOWN AS TO WHY THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR THE FAILURE ON HIS PART IN NOT MAKING THE PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 29(4) OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY. 1.A. II IS ALLOWED. CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED. THE PETITIONER IS GRANTED THREE MONTHS TIME TO VACATE THE PREMISES. PETITION DISMISSED.