NARAYAN Vs. MAHESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's petition under Section 115 of CPC.

(2.) PETITIONER/landlord herein filed an eviction petition against the respondent/tenant under section 21 (1) (a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (For short THE ACT) on the file of the additional Munsiff, Bagalkot on the ground that the landlord has issued a notice contemplated under Section 21 (1) (a) dated 24th July 1987 calling upon the letter to pay the arrears of rent for the period February '87 to July '87, monthly rents being calculated @ Rs. 300/- which he had not paid. The tenant refused to accept the said notice. Consequently the landlord filed an eviction petition. During the enquiry of the said eviction petition, the landlord also filed a application under Section 29 (1) of the act. The said application came to be allowed. The learned Munsiff determined the arrears of rent that the tenant was liable to pay to the landlord as on the date of his order i. e. , on 12. 7. 1990 @ Rs. 12,000/- and directed the tenant to pay the same within one month from that day. The tenant complied with the said order. The learned Munsiff however held relying on Section 21 (2) (i) that the tenant is absolved from the liability of being evicted under Section 21 (1) (a) of the act, in view of the same is consequently dismissed the eviction petition; Aggrieved by the said order, landlord herein preferred a Rent Revision Petition before the learned District Judge, Bijapur. The learned District Judge agreed with the reasonings of the learned Munsiff and by his order dated 15. 2. 1994 dismissed the eviction petition. These two orders are challenged in this petition.

(3.) SRI Krishna S. Dixit learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ landlord contended that both the Courts below have completely mis understood the scope of Section 21 (2) of the act. According to him the tenant in order to save himself from being evicted in the petition filed under Section 21 (1) (a), has to not merely comply with the provisions of Section 29 but to also show "sufficient Cause" for not paying the rents within 2 months when he received or deemed to have received the notice issued to him under Section 21 (1) (a ). This has not been done in this case and both the Courts below have not applied their minds to this aspect of the matter. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this court in SHIVA v. DEVANNA.