KIRIT HOME INDUSTRIES Vs. DE9SABI D GABBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. A. No.II filed by the respondent under S.29(4) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) was directed to be heard and disposed of along with this petition and it was dismissed yesterday aiter hearing both the Counsel.

(2.) This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the III Addl. Munsiff, Hubli, under S.29(3) of the Act in HRC. No.69 of 1969. The respondent landlady filed an application under S.21 of the Act praying for eviction of the petitioner on various grounds. She filed an application under S.29 (4) of the Act alleging that the petitioner had committed default in payment of rental which was Rs. 100 per month, and, therefore, further proceedings should be stopped and he should be directed to hand over possession of the premises to her. The petitioner contended that the rental of the premises was Rs.78 per month all along and that later on on 1st of October 1966 there was an agreement between him and the landlady that he should go on paying Rs.100 per month on condition that the landlady should effect certain repairs to the premises, and he, in pursuance of this agreement, went on paying that rental of Rs.100 from 1-10-1966 uptil the end of December 1967 i.e., for about 15 months, but on finding that the respondent-landlady had not effected the repairs as agreed between them he discontinued paying rental of Rs.100, but went on paying rental at the rate of Rs.78 per month from 1-1-1968 and then, issued notice (Ex.D1) intimating her that he was going to effect repairs. This agreement was denied by the respondent-landlady. In view of this dispute in regard to the rental to be deposited as required by S.29(1) of the Act, the learned Munsiff enquired into the dispute summarily under S.29(3) of the Act and held that the petitioner had not been able to establish that he has agreed to pay increased rental of Rs.100 from 1-10-1966 on condition that the landlady was to effect certain repairs, and that it was a rise in the rental as agreed between the parties and hence that was the rate at which the rental was to be deposited for purposes of Section 29(1) of the Act. In regard to repairs effected by the tenant as mentioned in Ex.D1, he has, by applying the provisions of S.44 of the Act, given deduction of one month's rental while computing the total amount that was to be deposited by the petitioner to satisfy the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Act, so as to avoid the mischief of S.29(4) of the Act. Sri V. S. Gunjal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently urged that the basis on which the learned Munsiff concluded that the rental was Rs.100 per month, is not correct because from 1-1-1968 and till at present the petitioner has gone on making payment of rental at the rate of Rs.78 per month only and he himself had effected repairs after issuing notice Ex.D1. He further urged that these facts and circumstances were sufficient to probabilise the case of the petitioner that he had agreed to pay rental at Rs.100 per month on the respondent-landlady undertaking to effect repairs and, hence, the conclusion of the learned Munsiff that the amount to be deposited to satisfy the requirements of S.29(1) of the Act was to be calculated at Rs.100 pm. is net correct. He also contended that while deciding the rental under S.29(3) of the Act, the Courts should bear in mind the provisions of Sections 14 and 16 and the relevant Rules framed thereunder, of the Act.

(3.) A reading of the provisions of S.29(1) of the Act goes to show that a tenant will not be permitted to contest an application preferred or to prosecute an appeal or revision petition under S.48 or S.50 of the Act against any order made by the Court on an application under S.21 of the Act or an order made by the District Judge on appeal as the case may be unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Court or the District Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises up to the date of payment or deposits and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises at the rate at which it was last paid or agreed to be paid until the termination of the proceedings before the Court or District Judge or the High Court, as the case may be. S.29(3) of the Act provides that whenever there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section(1) of Sec.29 of the Act, the amount to be so deposited should be determined summarily by the Court. It is, hence, clear that the only consideration that should weigh with a Court while making such a determination summarily is the amount that was agreed to be paid or last paid by the tenant to the landlord as mentioned in S.29(1) of the Act. Therefore, the contentions of Sri Gunjal in regard to the applicability of Ss. 14 and 16 and the Rules made thereunder of the Act, cannot be upheld.