MASTHAN Vs. SIRAJUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. On going through the impugned order of the Principal District Judge, Mysore in rent Revision No. 43 of 1984 which is under challenge in this revision, I find that the learned District Judge has not considered all the grounds and issues involved in the revision. Only on the technical ground of non-compliance of direction of the Trial Court in depositing the arrears of rent within one month's time granted, it was held that the revision was not maintainable. The Counsel for the petitioner relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in P. R. Deshpande v Maruti Balaram haibatti, to contend that the non-deposit of rent as directed by the Trial court entails dismissal of the revision on technical grounds. I find that the said ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The material observations of the Supreme court in para 18 are reproduced hereunder:

(2.) AFTER carefully going through the said observations and the underlined words in the observations do not lay down as a ratio that under all circumstances the filing of a revision without deposit of rent should necessarily result in dismissal of the revision. The Supreme Court, on the basis of peculiar facts involved in the case, rejected the contention of the revision petitioner to treat the subsequent deposit of rents as a deposit made along with the petition. The said request was rejected, in view of the peculiar conduct of the tenant. The ground urged before the supreme Court for non-deposit was not the ground urged in the counter filed to an application under Section 29 (4) and also in the special leave petition, the ground contended was not one of the grounds mentioned which was a factual situation. Therefore, in the absence of necessary opportunity to the other side to meet the factual situation, the request to consider the delay in deposit of rent relating back to the date of filing of the revision was rejected. Therefore, from the observations it is clear that it does not take away the discretion of the Court to condone the delayed deposit even if it is not made simultaneously with the filing of the revision.

(3.) IN the present case, the tenant, while filing the revision, did make a request along with the revision petition to permit him to deposit the arrears of rent. Accordingly, the permission was granted and for obtaining the receipt and for making necessary deposit, it took about three days time and on 18-2-1999 the deposit of arrears was made although the revision was filed on 15-2-1999. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deposit made cannot be related to the date of filing since on the date of filing, the request was made and necessarily the official procedures require the grant of permission and time taken in the legal procedures for the deposit cannot be considered as an intentional delay. In that view, the dismissal of the revision as not maintainable by the first revision court is untenable.