MARIYAPPA PARAPPA HONAGUDI Vs. BABURAO KRISHNARAO KURADEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's petition against the order passed by the learned munsiff rejecting his application tiled under S.29(4) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. The landlord made an application on 16th April 1968 for eviction of the tenant both on the ground of non-payment or rent as well as on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for personal occupation. It was pleaded in the application that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 14th April 1965, the rent of the premises being Rs.25 per month. An application was filed by the landlord on 10th December 1968 under S.29(4) of the Mysore Rent Control Act seeking an order of the Court for stopping all further proceedings and passing an order of summary eviction on the ground that the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent till the date of the said application. Objections to the said application were filed by the tenant on 3rd February 1969. Thereafter, the tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 1200 on the 4th March 1969. The deposit so made by the tenant covers the rent payable in respect of the premises from 14-4-1965 to 13-4-1969. It is not disputed that the tenancy commenced on the 14th of the month. The tenant made a subsequent deposit of Rs. 50 on 26th June 1969. That amount was deposited to cover the rent for the period from 14-4-1969 to 13-6-1969. A further deposit of Rs.50 was made on 5th August 1969 to cover the rent for the period 14-6-1969 to 13-8-1969. The learned Munsiff dismissed the application filed by the landlord under S.29(4) on 23rd August 1969. Hence this revision petition by the landlord.

(2.) Sri B. P. Holla, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Munsiff was not justified in holding that the tenant has shown sufficient cause for not stopping further proceedings in the case. But Sri G. B. Raikar, the learned Counsel for the respondent maintained that on the admitted facts there was no default in the payment of rent at all and that, therefore, the tenant was not required to show cause why further proceedings should not be stopped. The first payment made during the pendency of the proceeding was on 4th March 1969. In view of the decision of this Court in Ayesha Biddigna Begaum v. V.V.Sheik Kutty, 1968 (2) Mys.L.J. 5 it is not disputed that the tenant was not required to explain the delay in the first payment made during the pendency of these proceedings. As already mentioned, the deposit made on 4th March 1969 covers the rent payable up to 13th April 1969. It is, therefore, clear that the tenant has really paid one month's rent in advance. Sri Holla while not disputing that the default in payment of rent till 4th March 1969 cannot be taken into consideration for making an order under S.29, maintained that as the tenant committed further defaults in payment of rent that accrued due during the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord was entitled to an order in his favour under S.29(4) of the Mysore Rent Control Act.

(3.) The question for consideration, therefore, is as to whether in spite of the deposits made by the tenant on 26th June 1969 and 5th August 1969, it can be said that the tenant committed default in payment of rent accruing due during the pendency of the proceedings subsequent to the making of the first deposit in the Court on 4th March 1969. As already mentioned, the tenant did pay rent up to 13-4-1969 on 4th March 1969 itself. The amount deposited by the tenant on 26th June 1969 covers the rent for the period 14-4-1969 to 13-6-1969. Sri Raikar maintains that the amount deposited on 26th June 1969 was well within time and, therefore, his client has not committed any default. In support of his contention, Sri Raikar relied upon Rule 9 of the Mysore Rent Control Rules 1961 which reads as follows: