MOHAMAD FAZAL Vs. KANYAKAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order dated 2-l-1985 made by the District Judge, Mysore, in H.R.C.R.P. No. 36 of 1983 on his file. That revision before the District Judge was preferred by the landlord, a temple Trust in Mysore city, against the order of the learned I Addl. Munsiff, Mysore, dated 16-12-1982 made in H.R.C. No. 157 of 1978 on his file rejecting the eviction petition presented by the landlord Trust to evict the tenant, the present revision petitioner in this Court, on the ground that inspite of writ ten demand he had failed to pay the agreed rent of Rs. 60.00 per mensem from about the middle of 1976 within two months from the date of the service of notice.

(2.) The learned Munsiff rejected the petition without fully appreciating all the evidence on record and without formulating all the necessary paints for determination on the ground that the tenant bad sufficient cause not to pay the rents in accordance with the dictate or mandata of Sec. 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act).

(3.) The facts which are required to be stated as evidenced by the pleadings and the evidence on record are as follows : The landlord is a temple Trust. Some 30 years before the evidence was recorded in the case before the Munsiff, the tenant had been inducted into the petition schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 30.00. The landlord claimed that by agreement between the landlord and the tenant, the rent had been enhanced to Rs. 60.00 per mensem from about Sept., 1975. Rents were not paid from about the middle of 1976. A small cause suit was also filed for recovery of rent from the tenant at the rate of Rs. 60.00 per mensem. That suit was also contested by the tenant and it appears from the date of judgment the two proceedings, i.e., the proceeding for eviction under the Act as well as the proceedings under the Small Cause Courts Act, were simultaneously going on in the respective courts. In the small cause suit for recovery of rent at Rs. 60.00 per mensem, the Court came to the conclusion that the rent was Rs. 60.00 per mensem from a particular point of time and that the defendant therein ought to pay rent for which the decree was passed. The defendant-tenant did not prosecute any further remedy after the decree. He, however, paid the decreed amount soon thereafter and prosecuted his defence in the eviction proceedings after paying all the arrears of rent. It was in that circumstance that the Munsiff did not go into the quantum of rent and formulate a point in that behalf in the eviction proceedings. On the other hand, he proceeded to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Sec. 21 of the Act and recorded a finding that on account of the dispute in the quantum of rent, respondent-tenant was justified in not paying the rent and that constituted sufficient cause. Therefore, he rejected the petition.