Puttachannaiah vs R. Venkataram and Others

A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.—The petitioner-tenant has filed the revision petition being aggrieved by the order dated 19th February, 2001 passed in H.R.C. No. 1576 of 1997 allowing the application filed by respondents-landlords u/s 29(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (''the old Act'' for short) stopping all further proceedings in H.R.C. No. 1576 of 1997 and directing the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises to the respondents on or before 31-5-2001.

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Court below the respondents filed the application u/s 29(4) of the old Act for stopping further proceedings and directing the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises. The petitioner did not appear before the Court below to resist the petition. The Court below on hearing the respondents held that the petitioner committed wilful default in paying the rent and thereby he did not comply with the order of the Court below passed on 18-11-1998 wherein he was directed to pay all arrears of rent from 1-6-1997 to 31-10-1998 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The petitioner did not file any objections to the said application, nor did he show any cause for not paying or depositing the rent as directed by the earlier order. The Court, left with no other alternative, passed the impugned order which is challenged in this revision.

While preferring the revision the petitioner did not deposit the entire rental arrears due from 1-6-1997 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. He only deposited the rents for the months of March, April and May 2001 when he was actually due rents from 1-6-1997 to May 2001. The office had taken objection to the non-payment of the entire arrears. However, by order dated 30-5-2001 the Court overruled the office objections as by then the petitioner had paid off all the rental arrears upto February 2001. The revision came to be admitted on 29-6-2001.

The question that arises for my consideration in this revision is whether the revision petition is validly preferred and the petitioner could be permitted to call in question the legality and correctness of the impugned order.

After coming into force of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (''the Act'' for short), it is mandatory for the tenant who prefers a revision u/s 46 against any order made by a Court subordinate to this Court under the provisions of the Act or the old Act to deposit all arrears of rent at the time of preferring the revision. The person preferring a revision has to mandatorily satisfy this requirement as a precondition for entitling himself to the right of calling in question the correctness of the order by which he is aggrieved and Section 45(1) leaves nothing to the discretion of the Court in the matter when it states:

"Deposit and payment of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction.--(1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord u/s 27, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Court under that section or to prefer or prosecute a revision petition u/s 46 against an order made by the Court on application u/s 27 unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Court or the District Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, all arrears of rent and other charges due in respect of the premises upto the date of payment or deposits and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises at the rate at which it was last paid or agreed to be paid, until the termination of the proceedings before the Court or the District Judge or the High Court, as the case may be.

Section 45(1) of the Act is in pari materia with Section 29(1), of the old Act. The Apex Court in P.R. Deshpande Vs. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, when called upon to determine the question whether a revision not accompanied by either payment or deposit of all arrears of rent could be maintained answered the issue by interpreting Section 29(1) of the old Act, in the following terms:

"15. The words in Sub-section (1) ''or to prefer or prosecute a revision petition u/s 50'' encompass two stages. First is at the threshold when the tenant files the petition for revision. Second is a stage when he prosecutes his revision. On the first stage his revision petition is not maintainable unless it is accompanied by either payment or deposit of ''all the arrears of rent due upto the date of payment or deposit''. If the revision is validly preferred, then in the next stage of prosecution of revision the tenant has to continue to pay or deposit ''any rent which may subsequently become due'' until termination of the proceedings".

In the said case, the tenant also claimed that though he failed to comply with the requirement of Section 29(1) of the old Act, still, as the entire arrears were cleared by him at a later point of time, just as in the present case, that the revision has to be held to maintainable from the date of payment of the arrears. Declining to consider the said submission, the Apex Court observed:

"We are not disposed to countenance the said contention in this particular case for two reasons. Firstly, that the land lord-respondent filed an application u/s 29(4) of the Act before the District Court and the tenant has not taken up such a ground in the petition filed by him thereto. Secondly, even in the SLP he has not adopted any such contention and hence the landlord has no occasion to meet the factual situation on the basis of which the aforesaid contention is raised".

But, herein, the situation is different. This Court has firstly overruled the office objection and accepted the payment of arrears made by the petitioner and subsequently admitted the revision petition. When once the Court admitted the revision petition without exercising the other option open to it of stopping further proceedings and rejecting the revision petition as one invalidly made, it constructively follows that Court was satisfied that there was sufficient reason for not making the payment or deposit though this Court may not have recorded its satisfaction either while accepting the payment of rents or while admitting the revision petition. Therefore, the revision though invalid at the time of its filing has gained validity by virtue of the orders passed by this Court overruling the office objections and admitting the revision.

The question that still remains to be answered is whether the order impugned suffers from any illegality calling for interference by this Court. The Court below disposed of I.A. No. 2 filed by the respondents by its order dated 18-11-1998 directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent from 1-6-1997 to 31-10-1998 and gave him 30 days time to do so and also directed the petitioner to pay the future rents as and when they fall due. This order was challenged by the respondents in H.R.R.P. No. 61 of 1999. This Court set aside the order passed by the Court below on I.A. No. 2 and held mat the petitioner is liable to pay rents from November 1993 within one month from the date of receipt of this order by the Court below and also directed that the petitioner shall pay the future rents regularly as and when they fall due. The order impugned is dated 19th February, 2001 but this order does not take into account the order made in H.R.R.P. No. 61 of 1999 obviously because it was not brought to the attention of the Court. Nevertheless, the petitioner was represented by Counsel in the Court below. It is not his case that he had no knowledge of the order passed by the Court below on 18-11-1998. The petitioner despite the order directing him to pay future rents regularly failed to pay the rents for the months of April, May, June and July 1999 and the subsequent rents. The petitioner did not choose to file his objections to the application filed u/s 29(1) of the old Act. Nor did he show any cause for such non-payment of the future rents as and when they fell due. In such a situation, the Court below was compelled to proceed in accordance with law and in so proceeding it passed the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality calling for interference of this Court in revision.

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.