SALEEM Vs. SYED YOUSUFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition coming on for admission is heard at length in view of the petitioner not choosing to deposit the rent or arrears of rent prior to the presentation of the revision petition.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is the respondent in an eviction petition filed by the owner of the premises, who is none other than the father- in-law of the respondent. It was this petitioner's case before the trial Court, in which the eviction petition is pending, that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The trial Court having arrived at a finding that there exists a jural relationship of landlord and tenant, the petitioner seeks to prefer this revision petition.

(3.) The petitioner, however, has not chosen to deposit any arrears of rent. When the petitioner was called upon to deposit the arrears of rent, which the respondent-landlord seeks to claim as rent, the counsel for the petitioner contends that a plain reading of Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, would not mandate that any such pre-deposit ought to be made in a revision petition being preferred before this Court under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, since, Section 45 prescribes that a tenant shall be in a position to contest the eviction petition or to prefer or prosecute a revision petition under Section 46 against the order made by the Court on an application under Section 27 alone and that since, the present revision petition is sought to be preferred against an order passed under Section 43, there is no requirement of the petitioner making any such pre-deposit in seeking to prosecute the revision petition. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner would seek to place reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T. V. Usman v. Food Inspector, Tellichery Municipality (AIR 1994 SC 1818) and in particular would seek to place reliance on the following passage therein :-