RAMAIAH Vs. NARASAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's Revision Petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. against the order of the learned District Judge, Mysore, bearing the date 26-6 1982 made in HR. CRP. No. 128/1981.

(2.) The undisputed facts which are necessary for a just disposal of this Revision Petition may be stated and they are as follows: Respondent Narasiah is the owner of the petition schedule premises (non-residential) in which the revision petitioner before this Court is a tenant. The landlord got issued a notice on 12-7-1979 which was served on the tenant on 14-7-1979 claiming arrears of rent for a period of 1 1/2 years upto 1-7-1979 at the rate of Rs 60/- per mensem. Apparently, that notice was pursuant to the mandatory requirement of Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The tenant did not pay or tender the rent demanded nor did he issue any reply to the notice. It was in that circumstance that the landlord presented a petition for eviction in terms of the provisions contained in Clause (a) of sub section(1) of Section 21 of the Act in the Court of the II Additional Munsiff, Mysore. That petition was numbered as H.R.C. 448/1979. On being served with a notice of that petition, the tenant contested the petition solely on the ground that he did not pay the arrears of rent, as the rent demanded by the landlord in the sum of Rs. 60/- per mensem was in excess of the agreed rent of Rs. 25/- per mensem. In other respects, the averments of the petition were admitted by the tenant The matter went to trial on that issue. The learned II Additional Munsiff who tried the petition embarked on an enquiry straightaway as to the quantum of rent payable by the tenant in respect of the premises in question. In that enquiry after recording evidence for both sides, he came to the conclusion that the rent payable was only Rs. 25/- per mensem and not Rs. 60/- per mensem and having regard to the payments made during the pendency of the proceedings by the tenant, he determined that a sum of Rs. 350/- should be paid within one month from the date of his order made on 20 6-1981 and failure to comply with that order, landlord was entitled to seek possession straightaway. The tenant complied with that direction. But the landlord was not satisfied with the order made by the Learned II Additional Munsiff and therefore he preferred a Revision Petition against that order in the Court of the District Judge, Mysore, inter alia contending that the II Additional Munsiff had no jurisdiction to determine the quantum of rent and make a conditional order of eviction having regard to the circumstances of the case and further that the Learned II Additional Munsiff ought to have examined the scope of application of Section 21(l)(a) of the Act to the facts of the case and pass a final order. In other words, the contention was that as there was no sufficient cause shown by the tenant for not paying the arrears of rent from 1-7-1979 within two months from 14-7-1979, the II additional Munsiff ought to have passed an order of eviction. This contention met with success before the Learned District Judge. On the evidence available on record, the Learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the Munsiff had misdirected himself and passed a conditional order while he ought to have passed on order of eviction unconditionally having regard to the default which remained unexplained showing sufficient cause and directed the eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) Shri C.B.Srinivasan, Learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner, has contended that there was no misdirection by the Learned Munsiff and that the Munsiff had done only what was just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Once the landlord and tenant's relationship was admitted, the only matter in issue before him was the quantum of arrears due and having decided that issue, he had no option but to direct the deposit of those rents and to dismiss the petition subject to the condition that if the rents were not paid, the tenant should be evicted. I do not think there is force in that contention and therefore it is not liable to be accepted by this Court.