GULAM RASUL MANRULWALA Vs. SUSHEELAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, filed under 115 C.P.C. is by the tenant. Susheelamma, respondent herein, had filed an application under Clauses (a), (i) and (h) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act) in the court of the Prl. Munsiff, Shimoga, in H.R.C. No. 66 of 1975 against her tenant Gulam Rasul Manrulwala the pettitioner here in, claiming possession of the premises bearing No. 5211, Kalidas St.., Shimoga City. On the tenant raising objections to the claim made by the landlady the Court below received evidence, heard the parties concerned, and allowed the application only under Clause (a) of S. 21 (1) of the Act. The tenant preferred a revision in H.R.C.R.P. No. 45 of 1978 in the Court of the District Judge, Shimoga. The learned Judge has confirmed the order of the Munsiff. That order is under challenga in this revision.

(2.) It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the courts below had failed to properly construe sub-section (2) of S 21 of the Act, in particular, clause (ii) thereof. It was his submission that this provision (S. 21 (2) (ii) ) conferring as it does, a discretion on Court to give relief to tenants in the matter of their eviction for non-payment of rent requires to he liberally construed. In this connection, drawing an analogy between S. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1182, and this provision, he requested me to keep in mind decisions rendered thereunder while examining the scope of this provision

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent, while supporting the impugned order, pleaded that the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the tenant had, failed to show sufficient cause for not depositing or tendering the rent within the period referred to in S. 21 (1) (a) being one based purely on appreciation of facts, was not Fable to be disturbed by this Court.