PANCHAKSHARAPPA Vs. VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner in this Court under Section 115 C.P.C., is a tenant. Sometime when he acquired lease of the building in question, he was paying Rs. 75/- as rent. Thereafter, it is alleged that the landlord demanded Rs.175/-per mensem as rent which he paid. That enhancement of rent was paid from 1974. In 1979, the landlord-respondent in this proceedings filed eviction petition HRC No. 55/79 in the Court of the Munsiff, at Davanagere seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation, the ground available to the land-lord under clause (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was made under Section 29(1) of the Act by the landlord seeking payment of arrears of rent from the tenant before he proceeded to contest the eviction petition. In accordance with Section 29 of the Act an enquiry was held and in that enquiry the tenant was held to be in arrears of rent and he could not contest unless he deposited the arrears of rent within the time given by the Munsiff. Aggrieved by that order, he preferred a revision to the District Judge, under sub-section (2) of Section 50. He also filed an application before the District Judge that he is not liable to pay rent more than at the rate of Rs. 75/-having regard to the provisions in sub sections 2 and 3 of Section 18 of the Act. The contention, elaborated, was that the landlord was precluded from taking any premium or like sum, in cash or in kind, other than the agreed rents and therefore, the enhancement of rent by Rs. 100/- in 1974 was a sum received or such premium received in cash and in terms of sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act and such amount was liable to be adjusted at the instance of the tenant. Therefore, it was contended that no rent was due by way of arrears. The Learned Judge rejected the contention solely on the ground that enhanced rent could not be equated to the premium or sum, in cash or kind or consideration referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the present Revision Petition.

(2.) Mr. Prasad, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended before me that the Learned District Judge had erred in construing sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 18 of the Act. His argument was repetitive of what was argued before the District Judge.

(3.) A careful reading of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act along with sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act brings about the true meaning and intent of the words employed in sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act provides for the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller under the Act. Sub-section (l) of Section 18 of the Act speaks of cases where the fair rent has been fixed while sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act contemplates cases where such fair rent has not been fixed. Where the fair rent has not been fixed, after coming into the force of the Act, the land lord is precluded from receiving any premium or any sum or other consideration, in cash or kind, in addition to the stipulated rent. In case, if he has so received, as provided under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, it is liable to be adjusted or refunded at the wish of the tenant. The words employed are :