SILVA UDDIN Vs. SRI NAGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of learned counsel, I have heard the petition finally on merits and is being disposed of by this order.

(2.) THIS revision petition by the tenant is directed against the interlocutory order of the trial Court dtd 22. 07. 2003 allowing the application I. A No. 15 filed by the landlord/respondent u/s 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (the Rent Act for short) in HRC No. 730/1998 by directing the petitioner/tenant to pay or deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- being the arrears of rent from 27. 11. 1996 to 27. 6. 2003 within a period of one month. The petitioner was also directed to be regular in payment of future rents as and when they fall due and on default, the landlord is given liberty to take steps for the petitioners eviction.

(3.) MR. Javed Ahmed Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent and there was no attornment of tenancy in favour of the respondent. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the trial Court ought to have referred the parties to civil Court for declaration of their rights as contemplated u/s. 43 of the Rent Act instead of directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent relating to the premises.