SUDHAKAR Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant against an order of eviction made under Section 29(4) of the Karnatjka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The landlord has filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Act. During the pendency of the proceedings the landlord also filed an application under Section 29 of the Act since the tenant was in arrears. On 30-3-1987 the Court mada an order under Section 29 of the Act determining the rate of rent and the arrears payable by the tenant as Rs. 39,800/- as on the said date. The tenant was given a month's time and accordingly he deposited the samo within the time given by the Court. In fact, there was 6 days delay there also. The rate of rent determined by the Court was Rs. 1.400/-per month. The tenant, thereafter did not deposit the rent till 18 9-1987 on which date he deposited a sum of Rs. 7.600/- being 5 months rent. Subsequently, the payments were as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_90_KANTLJ1_1991Html1.htm</FRM> The landlord having realised the consistency on the part of the tenant, in not paying the rent in time, filed the present application under Sec. 29(4) of the Acton 30-8-1988 praying that all further proceedings be stopped and the respondent in the tfial Court (tenant) be directed to hand over possession of the premises to the petitioner. The tenant filed the objections to this application wherein he has given the above dates and the payments made by him and submitted that I.A.II filed by the landlord be dismissed accepting the rent paid by that time. Not a single explanation has been offered by the tenant as to whyy rents were deposited after due dates andnot in time. The trial Court allowed the application of; the landlord, rejecting the contentions of the tenant :that the application is not maintainable and held that the same is maintainable eventhough the rents have been deposited by the tenant. In the trial Court, the tenant had teen persistent in delaying the payments of rent as is clear from these dates and the tenant has nowhere explained the cause for such a delay and has also not offered any reason as to why proceedings should not be stopped and he be directed to hand over possession. This order is under challenge in this Civil-Revision Petition

(3.) Mr. Mahabalesh Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that (1) the application under Section 29(4) of the Act was not maintainable because the tenant had paid rents upto date by the lime the application was filed; (2) the Trial Court erred in ordering eviction without affording an opportunity to the tenant to show cause against it by a separate proceedings under Section 29(4} of the Act; and (3) the Trial Court should have accepted the explanation of the tenant to the effect that he has been paying rents regularly and the delays were only margi- nal.