ELSIE CONCESSO KAMATH Vs. ROSA D SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE REVISION FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, mangalore IN R. R. P. NO. 121 OF 1992. THE PETITIONER IS THE LANDLADY. THE respondent IS THE TENANT. THE LANDLADY FILED A PETITION FOR EVICTION IN h. R. C. NO. 99 OF 1990 ON "the FILE OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, MANGALORE under SECTION 21 (L) (A ). THE UNDISPUTED FACTS REVEAL THAT THE PETITION premises IS TENANTED ON A MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 450/- AND THAT AT THE relevant POINT OF TIME THERE WERE ARREARS OF THREE MONTHS RENTS PAYABLE by THE TENANT. THERE ARE OTHER TWO PREMISES ADJOINING THE PRESENT PREMISES having COMMON ELECTRICITY METER. IT IS SAID THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE month OF OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER 1989 ADJOINING TENANT VACATED THE PREMISES and HE DID NOT PAY THE ELECTRICITY BILLS. THE TENANT/respondent AND other TENANT IN THE OTHER ADJOINED PREMISES PAID THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED for THE MONTH. THE TENANT/respondent CONTRIBUTES A SUM OF RS. 116/- TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY BILL. IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS A demand MADE BY THE TENANT TO THE LANDLADY TO PAY THE ELECTRICITY BILL while TENDERING RENTS. THE LANDLADY REFUSED TO PAY THE ELECTRICITY BILL pertaining TO THE VACATED TENANT. THEREFORE, THE TENANT/respondent SENT a CHEQUE FOR RS. 1,234/- DEDUCTED RS. 116/- FROM THE ARREARS OF THREE months RENTS WHICH HAS BEEN PAID TOWARDS DISPUTED ELECTRICITY BILL. THE landlady DID NOT ACCEPT THE CHEQUE, IT WAS RETURNED TO THE TENANT. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 21 (A) CALLING UPON TO PAY THE entire ARREARS OF RENTS WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS. THE TENANT DID NOT REPLY THE notice. A PETITION CAME TO BE INSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 21 (A) FOR EVICTION.

(2.) IN THE OBJECTIONS STATEMENT THE TENANT HAS TAKEN UP PLEA CONTENDING THAT THE ARREARS OF RENT IN A SUM OF RS. 1,200/- WAS TENDERED BY CHEQUE DEDUCTING RS. 116/- PAID TOWARDS THE ELECTRICITY CHARGES AND IT ALSO DISCLOSES DURING THE PENDANCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT THE ARREARS OF RENTS AT RS. 9,450/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 26-7-1991. THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY WAS RIVETED IN RESPECT OF THE PROPRIETY OF DEDUCTIONS of RS. 116/- AND NON-PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF RENTS AFTER ISSUE OF STATUTORY notice UNDER SECTION 21 (L) (A) OF THE K. R. C. ACT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS and MATERIAL, THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE TENANT HAVING NOT PAID THE rents WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AS DIRECTED HELD THAT THE TENANT IS liable TO BE EVICTED UNDER SECTION 21 (L) (A ). BEING AGGRIEVED, TENANT FILED the REVISION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT IN REVISION. THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL court IS REVERSED AND PETITION UNDER SECTION 21 (L) (A) OF THE K. R. C. ACT IS dismissed. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER IN REVISION THE LANDLADY has COME IN REVISION BEFORE THIS COURT.

(3.) AFTER HEARING THE COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT, I FIND THAT THE MERE FACT OF NON-PAYMENT OF RENTS WITHIN A STATUTORY NOTICE PERIOD DOES NOT NECESSARILY WARRANT EVICTION UNDER SECTION 21 (L) (A) OF the ACT, SINCE THE COURT HAS TO SCRUTINIZE THE GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 21 (2) OF THE ACT WHILE ORDERING EVICTION UNDER SECTION 21 (L) (A) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 21 (2) OF THE K. R. C. ACT ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER for CONVENIENT REFERENCE: