SHA AMBALAL MOHANLAL OSWAL Vs. MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition by the tenant is directed against the order dated 6-10-1982 made by the Learned District Judge, Bijapur, in HRC. RP. No. 14/82 on his file. That revision was preferred by the tenant aggrieved by the order dated 15-3-1982 on I.A.I in HRC. No. 194/80 made by the Principal Munsiff, Bijapur, directing eviction under the provision of sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the circumstances hereinafter stated.

(2.) Respondents/landlords filed an eviction Petition on the ground available to them by virtue of Clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act stating that the premises in question was required for their own use and occupation to carry on their trade. The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the Petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioners (respondents herein) were not his landlords. While the matter stood thus, on 11-3-1982 an application under Section 29(4) of the Act was made by the landlords, presumably in Court. The Munsiff, Bijapur, before whom the Eviction Petition was pending, directed the case to be brought up for objections and evidence on 15-3-1982. When the matter was called, none appeared for the tenant/revision petitioner. It was kept by and called again at 1 P.M. Then also none appeared for the tenant. Therefore, the Munsiff proceeded to pass an order directing the tenant to put the landlords in possession of the premises on that day itself. It appears since then the landlords have taken possession of the premises.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred a Revision Petition before the District Judge, Bijapur, inter alia contending that the Munsiff could not have passed an order directing eviction on 15/3/1982 until and unless he had determined the amount of arrears of rent and made a direction giving sufficient time to the tenant to deposit the same. The thrust of the argument is that it is only when there is failure to deposit such amount as directed the Munsiff gets jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction stopping all further proceedings. The District Judge rejected that contention on the ground that there was no occasion for the Munsiff to make a direction to deposit the arrears of rent.