NARAYANA HEBBARA Vs. RADHAKRISHNA SHANKER SHENAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. A.No. IV has been field by the Mysore Rent in CRP. No 1715/67 purporting to be under Section 29(4) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act.' On an earlier occasion the above I.A. had been directed to be heard also with the main petition. When the main petition came up fro hearing on 9.7.1969 Sri B.P. Holla the learned Counsel fro the respondent, invited attention to the pendency of I. A. No. IV and urged the disposal of the main revision petition in the event of the Court allowing that application. Consequently, I propose to dispose of I.A. o. IV. It is necessary to set out a few facts briefly in order to appreciate the contentions advanced at the Bar. The main revision petition No. 1715 of 1967 has been preferred by the tenant of a non-residential premises. It arose out of a petition by the landlord for eviction filed before the Munsiff at Coondapoor, the principal ground urged being that the premises was required by the landlord for his own use. The said petition, HRCOP. No. 5 of 1966, was dismissed. On appeal, the learned District Judge allowed the petition and directed the eviction of the tenant from the premises. It is against that order that the revision has been preferred by the tenant on 1.12.1967.

(2.) In the course of the proceedings in this Court, the revision-petitioner preferred an application I.A. No. II seeking permission of the Court to deposit 'monthly rents' in the Court of the Munsif at Coondapoor in HIRCOP 5/66. This application was preferred on 23.2.1968. On 4.9.68 the permission prayed for was granted. It is also relevant to state that pursuant to the said order the first deposit was made by tenant only on 13.3.1969, amounting to Rs. 240 in all representing the arrears of rent upto end of March rent 1969. In the meanwhile on 24.2.1969 the respondent had filed I.A. No. IV under Section 29(4) of the Act. The allegation made in the affidavit in support of that application were that the tenant had failed to deposit the 'monthly rent' in accordance with the order made by this Court in I.A. No. II on 4.9.1968 and that he had failed to pay interest on such payment calculated at the contractual rate of 5 1/2 per cent per annum from the due date till payment. It was also alleged no notice of the deposit had been taken out to landlord in accordance with the elegant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. Based on these circumstances, the applicant in I.A. IV (respondent) prayed for an Order for stoppage of all proceedings and for the dismissal of the revision-petition, in accordance with sub-section (4) of that section. This application was opposed by the tenant by a counter-affidavit which had been affirmed by him on 15.3.1969. From the averments in this counter-affidavit of the tenant, it is relevant to refer to certain payments made on 10.4.1968 and onwards. On 10.4.1968 he has deposited Rs. 120/-, being the rent for the months of September, October and November, 1967 in a lumpsum. With a view to make that deposit the tenant had filed I.A. No. III supported by an affidavit, whose deponent was his Counsel Sri K.R. Karanth. According to that affidavit, the rents had been paid over to him for being deposited in Court in the event of the CRP being admitted, presumably in compliance with the statutory requirement enjoyed by Section 29(1) of the Act. I.A. NO. III is of no materiality to the present case except to refer to an argument of Sri K.R.D. Karanth, which will be adverted to at a later stage. Proceeding further with the counter-affidavit of the tenant, it is stated that although he had taken an order on 4.9.1968 enabling him to deposit the 'monthly rents' in the trial Court, he had tendered the rent for October, 1968 to the petitioner's Counsel, who refused to accept. Thereafter it was tendered to the landlord personally who was next door to the leased premises. The landlord also refused acceptance as per the averment of tenant. He then sent the rents for the months of October, 1968 to January, 1969 by money order on 18.2.1969, which was also refused by the landlord. It was thereafter that he received a intimation from his Counsel at Bangalore that the amount should be deposited in the trail Court with the entire arrears. That was how the deposit of Rs. 240/- came up to be made by him on 13.3.1969.

(3.) It was contended by Sri B.P. Holla the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the main petition, and the applicant in I.A. No. IV that having regard to the provisions of Sections 29(1) and 29(4) of the Act, and the facts and circumstances of this case an order for stoppage of all proceedings and dismissal of the revision petition should be made. Relying on several decisions of this Court, both reported and unreported, particularly those Thomas Veigas v. Leelavathi,1965 2 MYSLJ 371. S.H. Patil v. Keshav Vitobe Sagar,1967 2 MYSLJ 615, and Ayesho Biddiqua V. Sheikh Kutty,1968 MYSLJ 6, and the decisions in CRPs. Nos. 113/65 and 1855 of 1967, he submitted that Section 29(1) dealt with two different situations relating to the payment of deposit of rents, one regarding arrears upto the date of such payment and the other 'monthly rent' accruing due during the pendency of the petition for eviction under Section 21 of the Act. It was grgued that having regard to the interpretation of the first part of Section 29(1) placed by this Court in Avesha Biddigua v. Sheikh Kultty, the tenant could pay or deposit all arrears of rent calculated up to date of payment during the pendency of a petition in Court, notwithstanding the fact that an application under Section 29(4) of the Act had already been filed and was pending. As proceeded to argue that once such a deposit of all arrears of rent was made, the tenant was obliged to continue payment or deposit of 'monthly rents' as and when they accrued due in course of the proceedings, in order to avoid the untoward consequences specified in Section 29(4) of the Act. He also submitted that the tenant would not be entitled to the indulgence granted under the first part of Section 29(1) of the Act, for a second time in the course of the same proceedings. As regard his contentions relating to the non-payment of interest and process fee for notice of deposit, I am of the view that there is not much merit in any of them. The interest stipulated under the contract obviously postulates the existence of a debt in the shape of rent which remained unpaid on the due date. It may not, therefore, strictly form a part of the rent which was required to be paid or deposited by him. In the views I propose to take of this case, it is unnecessary to decide this question finally in the present proceeding. As regards the non-payment of process fee, Sri Holla did not advance any serious argument and it is, therefore, rejected. I am of the view that the other submissions made by Sri B.P. Holla are sound and have to be accepted.