SHEVADE CAMERA WORKS LTD Vs. RAMACHANDRA KHEMAJIRAO GODSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under S.5C of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner, who is admittedly the tenant of the schedule premises, has challenged the order dated 17-1-1975, passed on IA.3 by the First Addl Munsiff, Belgaum, in HRC.85 of 1973, holding that the arrears due by the petitioner-tenant to the respondent-landlord amounted to Rs.195 and directing that the petitioner-tenant should pay the said amount of Rs.195 on or before 31-1-1975 and the petitioner-tenant should go on paying or depositing the rent for the further period from 15-5-1970 till the conclusion of the HRC proceeding at the annual rent of Rs.180.

(2.) The few facts necessary for consideration of this petition may be narrated as follows: HRC.85 of 1973 was filed by the landlord praying for vacant possession of the schedule premises on the grounds available under Cls.(a) and (h) of the proviso to S.21(1) of the Act. The petitioner-tenant contested the proceeding. During the pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner-tenant filed IA-3 under S.29(3) of the Act for determining the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-sec (1) of S.29 of the Act. The Munsiff held that the amount of arrears was Rs.195 and directed the petitioner-tenant should pay the said amount before 31-1-75 and should go on paying or depositing the annual rent at Rs.180 for the further period from 15-5-1970 till the conclusion of the HRC.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner-tenant, as put before the Munsiff and sought to be argued in this revision petition, is that the petitioner-tenant had made payments by way of cheques etc, and those amounts exceeded what he was required to pay even at the rate of Rs.180 per year. Shri K.I.Bhatta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlord raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner-tenant has not paid or deposited the arrears of Rs.195 found due by the Munsiff by 31-1-1975 and in fact, that amount is still due from him and, therfore, action under S.29(4) of the Act should be taken.