Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1.This Revision Petition by the tenant is directed against the order dated 6-10-1982 made by the Learned District Judge, Bijapur, in HRC. RP. No. 14/82 on his file. That revision was preferred by the tenant aggrieved by the order dated 15-3-1982 on I.A.I in HRC. No. 194/80 made by the Principal Munsiff, Bijapur, directing eviction under theprovision of sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the circumstances hereinafter stated.
2. Respondents/landlords filed an eviction Petition on the ground available to them by virtue of Clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act stating that the premises in question was required for their own use and occupation to carry on their trade. The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the Petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioners (respondents herein) were not his landlords. While the matter stood thus, on 11-3-1982 an application under Section 29(4) of the Act was made by the landlords, presumably inCourt. The Munsiff, Bijapur, before whom the Eviction Petition was pending, directed the case to be brought up for objections and evidence on 15-3-1982. When the matter was called, none appeared for the tenant/revision petitioner. It waskept by and called again at 1 P.M. Then also none appearedfor the tenant. Therefore, the Munsiff proceeded to pass an order directing the tenant to put the landlords in possession of the premises on that day itself. It appears since then the landlords have taken possession of the premises.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred a Revision Petition before the District Judge, Bijapur,inter alia contending that the Munsiff could not have passed an order directing eviction on 15-3-1982 until and unless he had determined the amount of arrears of rent and made adirection giving sufficient time to the tenant to deposit the same. The thrust of the argument is that it is only when there is failure to deposit such amount as directed the Munsiff gets jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction stopping all further proceedings. The District Judge rejected that contention on the ground that there was no occasion for theMunsiff to make a direction to deposit the arrears of rent.
4. I am in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Learned District Judge. In this Court also Sri W.K. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant contended the same as was contended before the District Judge.
5. Section 29 of the Act is a provision which enables a landlord to receive the admitted rents as well as the arrears, if any, prior to the date of application during the pendency of the eviction proceedings on whatever grounds available to him. Therefore, the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act is that the tenant is precluded from contesting the proceedings if he fails to pay to the landlord or deposit the same in Court. Sub-section (2) provides as to how the deposit of rent under sub-section (1) to be made within the time and the manner prescribed under sub-section (5). Sub-section (3) provides for adjudication of dispute and where there is dispute in regard tothe quantum of arrears of rent. But, sub-section (4) did not make any distinction between the deposit contemplated under sub-sections (1) and (2) on the one hand and sub-section (3) on the other. It only speaks of the deposit as aforesaid contemplated under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3).
6. In the instant case, none turned up on the specified date, i.e., 15-3-1982. In the application filed on 11-3-1982 he landlords have made a specific demand for 14 monthsend specifying the date from which it was due till the date of application. If the tenant appeared and disputed the same, then the Court was bound to make an enquiry under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Act. If he did not dispute it, then, the only course left to him is to deposit the same in accordance with sub-section (1) or pay to the landlords. By his absence the tenant having not done what was required by him under sub-sections (1) or (2) or (3)s he cannot now make a grievance that the Munsiff was still required to make a direction giving him time under sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Act. Therefore, I do notsee any error of jurisdiction as contended in the view taken by the Learned District Judge.
7. Petition is misconceived and therefore it is rejected.