Skip to content


M.G. Brothers Vs. M.A. Nagaraj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 1935 of 1985
Judge
Reported inILR1985KAR3474
ActsKarnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 29(1)
AppellantM.G. Brothers
RespondentM.A. Nagaraj
Appellant AdvocateT. R. Rangaraju, Adv. for Kesvy & Co.
Respondent AdvocateYoganarasimha, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....violative of article 14 of constitution of india as discriminatory in nature. - 3. sri rangaraju next feebly attempted to point out that the provision must be liberally construed and if on the date of hearing of the revision, there were no rents due, then this court should interfere......to the landlord. sri rangaraju, learned counsel for the tenant, strenuously contended that on the date of hearing of the revision petition, there were no arrears of rent due and payable and therefore the revision petition was not liable for dismissal, more so when the same has been admitted and stay of munsiff's order of eviction granted. he drew my attention to the ruling of the supreme court in the case of sheo narain -vs- sher singh : [1980]1scr836 . in that case, section 13(2) proviso of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 fell for consideration. relying on the said decision of the supreme court, rangaraju contended that if on the first date of hearing all the rents had been paid, then it should specify the requirement of law as found in section 29(1) of the karnataka.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.

1. This is a tenant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 22-6-1985 made by the District Judge, Mandya, in C.R.P.No. 8 of 1985 on this file. By the said order he dismissed the revision of the tenant following a Division Bench ruling in the case of Medical Research Laboratory Private Ltd. -vs- K.C. Ajith : AIR1985Kant95 . Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has preferred this revision.

2. What the Division Bench of this Court has ruled aad what the District Judge has done is to hold that a tenant cannot prosecute a revision petition unless on the date of the petition, he has paid or deposited all arrears of rent law-fully due to the landlord. Sri Rangaraju, Learned Counsel for the tenant, strenuously contended that on the date of hearing of the revision petition, there were no arrears of rent due and payable and therefore the revision petition was not liable for dismissal, more so when the same has been admitted and stay of Munsiff's order of eviction granted. He drew my attention to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Narain -vs- Sher Singh : [1980]1SCR836 . In that case, Section 13(2) proviso of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 fell for consideration. Relying on the said decision of the Supreme Court, Rangaraju contended that if on the first date of hearing all the rents had been paid, then it should specify the requirement of law as found in Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. It is difficult to accept that proposition. Section 13 (2) (i) of the Punjab Act made some specific provision in regard to the payment or tender of rents in arrears specifically a condition precedent before the first day of hearing. It is having regard to that fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court was in error in holding that the rents should be deposited even before filing of the petition. The Karnataka Act is similar to Section 13(2) of the Punjab Act only in respect of right to contest an eviction petition spelt out in sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act. The right to contest means the right to enter appearance and then proceed with the case. In that sense, till the date of appearance as indicated in the sum-mons, the tenant has time to pay the arrears of rent in order to acquire the right to contest. But, that does not apply to the prosecution of any further proceedings or any revision which is, also spelt out in sub-section (l) of Section 29 of the Act. There the condition precedent is that all rents due must be paid or deposited in Court before the revision is prosecuted; in other words, presentation of petition as a condition precedent, that is, deposit of rent or payment of rent. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench ruling which has undoubtedly laid down the correct law in so far as it concerns provisions contained in the Karnataka Act was a binding precedent on the District Judge and following that precedent cannot be said to be an error of law.

3. Sri Rangaraju next feebly attempted to point out that the provision must be liberally construed and if on the date of hearing of the revision, there were no rents due, then this Court should interfere. I do not think there can be such laxity of application of the law made by Legislature though by and large legislation in question is biased in favour of the tenant.

4. Revision Petition is rejected.


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