SYED UMAR SAHEB Vs. B H SANTHAKUMARIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant has challenged the order of the Munsiff, Mandya made under 3.29(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the order of the Dist Judge, Mandya, confirming the said order of eviction.

(2.) The first respondent filed an application under S.21(1) (a) (h) & (j) of the Act. During the pendency of the said application, the landlord applied for action being taken under S.29 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has committed default in the payment of rent. The landlord had also instituted a suit in the year 1974 for recovery of arrears at rent and obtained a decree. He sued execution of the said decree. The decree was not satisfied. When the landlord filed an application before the learned Munsiff for taking action under Sec.29(4) of the Act, an order was made directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,470 on or before 18-3-1976. The petitioner did not pay the said amount. He challenged the said order before the learned Dist Judge, in revision. The learned Dist Judge dismissed the revision petition holding that there are no good grounds to interfere. Hence, ha confirmed the order of the Munsiff.

(3.) In this writ petition it was contended by Shri P.Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the landlord is not entitled to simultaneously pursue the two remedies-one under the Rent Control Act and another under the ordinary law. He submitted that the landlord, having obtained a decree for arrears of rent, sued out execution and obtained attachment of some of the moveable of the petitioner, could not have at the same time invoked the provisions of S.29 of the Act to secure an order of (eviction in his favour. Similar contention urged before the learned Dist Judge has been repelled and for good reasons. A right which the landlord has of securing an order of eviction by invoking the provisions of S.29 of the Act, is an independent right which is conferred on the landlord by the statute. That right can be enforced by the landlord if the conditions specified in the statute are satisfied. The fact that the landlord is executing the decree for recovery of arrears of rent does not preclude the landlord from securing appropriate relief under the provisions of the Act. If the petitioner had paid all the arrears of rent in execution of the Civil Court decree, the petitioner could have placed that material before the Court functioning under the Karnataka Rent Control Act to persuade it to dismiss the application filed under S.29 of the Act. The decree passed by the Civil Court has not been fully satisfied though the landlord obtained a decree in his favour and took steps for execution of the said decree. The amount directed to be deposited by the Munsiff under S.29 of the Act also has not been fully paid. The resultant position is that the arrears of rent due by the petitioner has not been paid and the petitioner has failed to show cause for not taking action under S.29 of the Act. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Munsiff was not justified in making an order under Section 29 (4) of the Act.