T B MEHNAN Vs. KANAKARAJA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter came to this Court once before in CRP. No. 11 of 1969 , and a learned judge of this Court allowed the revision, petition and remanded the case to the District Judge for reconsideration. Two questions were directed to be reconsidered: one, whether the petitioner made out a good ground for review under S. 23 (k) of the buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act read with 0. 47 R. 1 of the Code of Civil procedure; and two, whether he established that he was not a defaulter in paying rent coming within the meaning of S. 12 of the Act.

(2.) PENDING the proceedings before the Rent Control Court , the petitioner made certain deposits towards arrears of rent. But, the entire arrears were not deposited. Under S. 12 of the Act, the petitioner had to deposit the entire arrears before he could contest the petition for eviction. Since he did not deposit the entire arrears within the time allowed by 'the Rent Control Court, the court stopped all further proceedings and made an order directing the petitioner to put the respondent in possession of the building. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited all the arrears and requested the Rent Control Court to review its earlier order and reopen the proceedings, so that he might contest the petition for eviction. This the Rent Control Court disallowed; and this was confirmed in appeal and revision too. The question for me to consider is whether the order of the lower courts is right.

(3.) IN view of this conclusion on the first question, the second question - whether the petitioner was a defaulter - does not arise. The civil revision petition is dismissed, however, without costs. . .