MASTAN SAB Vs. SRI RAMALINGAREDDY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -tenant is challenging the order of the Principal District Judge, Bidar, in HRC No. 1 of 1997, dated 14.10.1997. Respondent -landlord filed eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a)(h) and (f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('Act' for short) before the Rent Control Court seeking for eviction of the premises occupied by the tenant. An application was filed under Section 29(4) of the Act for stoppage of all proceedings. The trial Court directed the Petitioner to pay the rents in terms of the said Act. There is a dispute with regard to the quantum of the rent. In those circumstances the Petitioner filed petition under Section 29(3) of the Act. The same was contested. After contest the Court ruled that the arrears stood at Rs. 36,000/ -. This order was challenged in a revision petition under Section 50(2) of the Act in HRC R1 of 1997. The Revisional Court by order dated 15.2.1997 directed the Petitioner -tenant to deposit the entire amount as quantified by the trial Court as arrears before invoking powers of the revisional Court. Petitioner -tenant deposited only a sum of Rs. 18,000/ - in the Court. The said deposit was permitted to be made without prejudice to the rights of the parties and subject to the validity of such deposit and regarding maintainability of the revision petition vide order dated 10.4.1997. IA I was filed by the Petitioner seeking for stay of execution of the order. IA 2 is filed by the Petitioner again to deposit only Rs. 18,000/ - and praying for six weeks time to deposit the balance. IA 4 is filed for holding a summary enquiry on Section 29(3). IA 5 is filed by the landlord for disposal of the petition on account of violation of the order. The matter was heard. The revisional Judge framed as many as 4 issues for his consideration. Revisional Judge answered in negative all the points and ruled that revision is not maintainable in the impugned order. This order is challenged before me by the tenant.

(2.) SRI Gachhinmath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully argued before me and contended that the trial Court is not competent to pass the impugned order since according to him Section 14 comes in the way of the landlord. He relies on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Deshraj Vs. Akhtar Hussain, AIR 1961 SC 148.

(3.) AFTER hearing the Counsel on either side I have perused the impugned order. The admitted facts reveal that HRC case is filed for eviction and in terms of Section 29 an application was filed for stoppage of proceedings and the Court below passed an order directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent. In view of the controversy the tenant rightly invoked Section 29(3) of the Act. The learned Judge after hearing the parties in detail ordered payment of Rs. 36,000/ - being the arrears. When a revision is filed against that order the revisional judge rejected the same in the absence of deposit of arrears in terms of Section 50 of the Act. The arguments of Sri Gachhinmath is that only Section 14(1) provided for enhancement of rent. Counsel forget that an adverse order was passed in terms of Section 29. He himself has filed an application under Section 29(3) of the Act. The entire Section 29 deal with the deposit during the pendency of proceedings. Enhancement of rent is different from deposit of the rent under Section 29. Therefore, the argument of the Counsel that the impugned order of the revisional Judge is unsustainable in view of Section 14 cannot be accepted in the light of Section 29 of the Act.