Narayan Vs. Mahesh

Narayan vs Mahesh

Disposition Petition allowed Court Karnataka Decided Jun 22, 1998

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/387095

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/387095
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: H. Rangavittalachar, J.
Decided On: Jun 22, 1998
Case Number: HRRP No. 956/1994
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961) - Section 21(1)(a) and 21(2) and 29. Eviction petition dismissed when the Tenant complied with order under Section 29 in an Eviction petition filed under Section 21(1)(a) -- HELD -- The dismissal of the eviction petition without considering the cause fo...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 21(1), (2) and 29

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayan

Advocate Krishna S. Dixit, Adv.

Respondent

Mahesh

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 21(1), (2) and 29
Reported In: ILR1998KAR3589

Excerpt

.....of the petitioner to serve a copy of the petition on the defendant along with notice, order 8 rule 11 cpc can have no application at all to a proceedings under the act. the order passed is without application of mind and in total disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the provisions governing the procedure that ought to be mandatorily followed under the act. (b) karnataka rent act, 1999 (karnataka act no. 34/2001) - section 42 -- karnataka rent rules, 2001 -- rule 33 -- civil procedure code, 1908 ( central act no. 5 of 1908) --order 5 rule 2, order 8 rule 11 -- trial court took exception to the filing of the objection statement beyond the outer period prescribed in the civil procedure code and rejected it -- order of trial court set aside and applicability of section 42(1) of the act read with order 5 rule 2 and order 8 rule 11 cpc discussed. held: the impugned order prejudicially affects the right of the petitioners since he is estopped from meeting the case as pleaded by the respondent in her petition. in the absence of pleadings by the petitioner-tenant the court may well refuse to consider the oral evidence that maybe led by him in support of any defence that may be open to him. before passing such an order the court was duty-bound to call upon the petitioner in terms of section 42 (1) of the act to show cause why such an order should not be passed against him. it is quite regrettable that the court-below passed the order when the petitioner-tenant had not even taken a single adjournment for filing the objections. the order is passed overlooking sub-section(3) of section 42 which provides that a party is entitled to request and obtain three adjournments throughout the proceedings and the adjournments could be obtained at any stage of the proceedings. the order-sheet discloses that even this benefit had not been availed of by the petitioner-tenant for filing the statement as he had promptly filed it on the very next date of hearing...........to him under section 21(1)(a). this has not been done in this case and both the courts below have not applied their minds to this aspect of the matter. in support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on a division bench judgment of this court in shiva v. devanna.4. in my opinion, the said submission has substance. it has been held in the said decision that clauses i, ii, iii, of sub-section (2) of section 21 of the act have to be read in conjunction, if so read, the tenant in order to have the benefit of the said section has to comply with all the clauses. both the courts in this case have proceeded to absolve the tenant from the liability of being evicted only on the ground that the tenant has complied with the provisions of section 29 of the act without giving a further finding whether:'the tenant had sufficient cause for default to pay or tender the rents within the period referred to in clause (a)'.5. therefore in my opinion, the order of the learned munsiff as well as the order of the learned district judge are liable to be set-aside and is accordingly set aside. since as already held by me, both the courts have not applied their minds to this aspect of the matter viz., has the tenant shown sufficient cause for non-payment of demanded rents the matter has to go back to the file of the learned munsiff to enquire and decide the question viz:'whether the tenant had sufficient cause for non payment of the rents within 2 months from the date he received or deemed to have received the notice contemplated under section 21 (1)(a) and in the light of the decision of the division bench judgment of this court referred to above.'6. having regard to the long pendency of the matter learned munsiff is directed to dispose-off the same within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order.petition allowed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

H. Rangavittalachar, J.

1.This is a landlord's petition under Section 115 of CPC.

2. Petitioner/landlord herein filed an eviction petition against the respondent/tenant under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (For short THE ACT) on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Bagalkot on the ground that the landlord has issued a notice contemplated under Section 21(1)(a) dated 24th July 1987 calling upon the letter to pay the arrears of rent for the period February '87 to July '87, monthly rents being calculated @ Rs. 300/- which he had not paid. The tenant refused to accept the said notice. Consequently the landlord filed an eviction petition. During the enquiry of the said eviction petition, the landlord also filed a application under Section 29(1) of the act. The said application came to be allowed.The learned Munsiff determined the arrears of rent that the tenant was liable to pay to the landlord as on the date of his order i.e., on 12.7.1990 @ Rs. 12,000/- and directed the tenant to pay the same within one month from that day. The tenant complied with the said order. The learned Munsiff however held relying on Section 21(2)(i) that the tenant is absolved from the liability of being evicted under Section 21(1)(a) of the act, in view of the same is consequently dismissed the eviction petition; Aggrieved by the said order, landlord herein preferred a Rent Revision Petition before the learned District Judge, Bijapur. The learned District Judge agreed with the reasonings of the learned Munsiff and by his order dated 15.2.1994 dismissed the eviction petition. These two orders are challenged in this petition.

3. Sri Krishna S. Dixit learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ landlord contended that both the Courts below have completely mis understood the scope of Section 21(2) of the act. According to him the tenant in order to save himself from being evicted in the petition filed under Section 21(1)(a), has to not merely comply with the provisions of Section 29 but to also show 'Sufficient Cause' for not paying the rents within 2 months when he received or deemed to have received the notice issued to him under Section 21(1)(a). This has not been done in this case and both the Courts below have not applied their minds to this aspect of the matter. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in SHIVA v. DEVANNA.

4. In my opinion, the said submission has substance. It has been held in the said decision that Clauses i, ii, iii, of Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act have to be read in conjunction, if so read, the tenant in order to have the benefit of the said section has to comply with all the clauses. Both the Courts in this case have proceeded to absolve the tenant from the liability of being evicted only on the ground that the tenant has complied with the provisions of Section 29 of the act without giving a further finding whether:

'The tenant had sufficient cause for default to pay or tender the rents within the period referred to in Clause (a)'.

5. Therefore in my opinion, the order of the learned Munsiff as well as the order of the learned District Judge are liable to be set-aside and is accordingly set aside. Since as already held by me, both the Courts have not applied their minds to this aspect of the matter viz., has the tenant shown sufficient cause for non-payment of demanded rents the matter has to go back to the file of the learned Munsiff to enquire and decide the question viz:

'Whether the tenant had sufficient cause for non payment of the rents within 2 months from the date he received or deemed to have received the notice contemplated under Section 21 (1)(a) and in the light of the decision of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court referred to above.'

6. Having regard to the long pendency of the matter learned Munsiff is directed to dispose-off the same within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order.

Petition allowed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1998 Same Parties Narayan vs Mahesh Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge H. Rangavittalachar, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 21(1), (2) and 29

Tenancy