E NANJE GOWDA Vs. B K CHANNE GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision petition filed by the tenant under Section 115, c.p.c., is not yet admitted as the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord raised a preliminary objection that this civil revision petition is not maintainable as the tenant has not deposited the rents due by him either at the lime of the filing of this revision petition or subsequently. So, Sri chandrasekharaiah. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri ashok haranahalli, learned eounset for the respondent-landlord, are heard on that point.

(2.) Sri chandrasekharaiah contended that the Provisions of Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1061 (for short "the act") are not applicable to revision petitions filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. and, therefore, it is not open to the respondent-landlord to contend that this revision petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-deposit of arrears of rent as required under Section 29(1) of the Act, which reads as under:

(3.) the argument of Sri chandrasekharaiah is that since it is not mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the act that arrears of rent has lo be deposited even in revision petit ions filed under Section 115, c.p.c., the above extracted Provisions of Section 29(1) are not applicable to revision petitions filed under Section 115, C.P.C.