Skip to content


Syed Umer Saheb Vs. B.H. Santhkumaraiah and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Kant85; ILR1976KAR1405
ActsKarnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 29
AppellantSyed Umer Saheb
RespondentB.H. Santhkumaraiah and ors.
Advocates:P. Subba Rao, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....to interfere. similar contention urged before the learned district judge has been repelled and for good reasons. the landlord can enforce that right if the conditions specified in the statute are satisfied. 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 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 section 29 of the act......the said decree. the decree was not satisfied. when the landlord filed an application before the learned munsiff for taking action under section 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 district judge, in revision. the learned district judge dismissed the revision petition holding that there are no good grounds to interfere. hence, he 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.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner-tenant has challenged the order of the Munsiff, Mandya made under Section 29 (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as the 'Act') and the order of the District Judge, Mandya, confirming the said order of eviction.

2. The first respondent filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a), (h) and (j) of the Act. During the pendency of the said application, the landlord applied for action being taken under Section 29 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has committed default in the payment of rent. The landlord has also instituted a suit in the year 1974 for recovery of arrears of rent and obtained a decree. He sued out execution of the said decree. The decree was not satisfied. When the landlord filed an application before the learned Munsiff for taking action under Section 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 District Judge, in revision. The learned District Judge dismissed the revision petition holding that there are no good grounds to interfere. Hence, he 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 Section 29 of the Act to secure an order of eviction in his favour. Similar contention urged before the learned District 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 Section 29 of the Act, is an independent right, which is conferred on the landlord by the statute. The landlord can enforce that right 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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.

4. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and is rejected.

5. Petition rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //