M R ANANTHASWAMY Vs. PUTTAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant has in this petition challenged the order of eviction passed by the V Addl I Munsift, Bangalore, in HRC No.995 of 1971 and affirmed by the I Addl Dist Judge, Bangalore, in HRC No.41 of 1973. The respondent is the land-lady.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitions is the tenant and the Respt. is the land-lady. The rental of the schedule premises is Rs 20 p.m The facts held proved by the two Courts below are that the Respt-land-lady issued notice Ext P1 dt 29-6-1971 intimating the tenant that ho had failed to pay the rental for the period between 1-6-1969 and 30-6-1971 (24 months) and that he was called upon to vacate the premises on the expiry of the 31st of July 1971 The tenant did not vacate the premises. The land-lady instituted HRC proceedings on 8-9-1971 under Cl. (a) of the proviso to S.21(J) of the Karnataka, Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The tenant contended that he had not at ail defaulted in payment of ren1al and had in fact discharged all the dues and further that he had paid a sum of Rs 250 to the land-lady as advance and he was entitled to adjustment of the same.

(3.) Both the Courts below have found that the tenant had not established that he had paid all the rental due and also had paid a sum of Rs 250 as advance towards the rental They further held that as the tenant had not shown sufficient cause for the default to pay 01 tender the rent within the period referred to in Cl (a) of the proviso to S 21(1) of the Act, he was not entitled to protection from eviction in view of sub-sec. (2) of Sec.21 of the Act.