MANJUNATHA SHETTY Vs. S SUSHEELA THIMMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant and landlord have both assailed an order made by the learned Judge in purported exercise of the powers under S. 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in the course of which the learned Judge made the following order :-

(2.) The landlord's grievance is (that) the learned Judge was ill-advised in giving a direction to him to adjust the future rents of Rs. 11,800/- lying with him, making it clear until such adjustment is made, the tenant is not liable to pay any rents which is fixed at Rs. 850/- as against Rs. 1025/- claimed by the landlord. But the tenant's grouse is in relation to the finding that there was arrears of rent of Rs. 500/-. Mr. Chandrahasa for tenant maintains that this is a case in which the Court below ought to have held that he is not in arrears at all. Taking into consideration certain aspects of the case rate of rent having been determined by the Court at Rs. 850/- as against Rs. 1025/- claimed by the landlord, if was a clear case of tenant being found to be not due towards rental arrears at all. Counsel points out that prior to the institution of the H.R.C. case, there was exchange of notices between both sides during which it is pointed out a conspicuous omission was there to make any arrears of rent or non-payment or rents by the tenant. Counsel also invited my attention in particular to the reply issued by the tenant inter alia asserting that the tenant was a person who paid rents regularly and as a matter of fact rendered statement of accounts along with implied notice. It was then pointed out after the reply was issued, the landlord issued a rejoinder in which it was claimed that rents remitted by cheque along with the tenant's reply was not in full settlement of the rents due per month and it was a shortfall etc. etc.

(3.) Evidence appears to have been recorded on this disputed question as the rate of rent, rental arrears if any etc. etc. Two issues were framed and determined by the learned Judge. Before the Court below, both sides examined themselves and closed their case, but curiously neither side appears to have produced any documentary evidence like receipts, accounts etc. regarding payment or non-payment of rent etc. It appears a suggestion was made to the tenant on behalf of the landlord that the man was signing on a voucher for having paid rents which the Counsel for tenant says that at least should have been produced by the landlord. He therefore says the landlord was really suppressing material pertaining the payment of rents and therefore he cannot possibly be called into arrears for the period from 1-6-1989 to 1-4-1992 as held by the learned Judge in the Court below.