JUDGMENT
Shivaprakash, J.
1. Though this matter is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal by consent of parties.
2. This Revision Petition is presented by the ‘landlord’ against the interim order dated 11.7.1994, passed on I.A.X in HRC No. 1413/92. The trial Court in its order has allowed the application filed by the tenant purporting to be under Section 151 of C.P.C. read with Rule 35, of the Karnataka Rent Control Rules staying all further proceedings in the aforesaid case till the disposal of F.R.5/92 on the file of the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, South Range, Bangalore on condition that the respondent – tenant shall “continue to deposit the current rents at the agreed rate subject to the final orders that would be passed” in the case.
3. It appears, the respondent-tenant has filed an application before the Accommodation Controller under Section 14 of the Act for fixation of fair rent of the premises in question.
4. It is not in dispute that the agreed rent is Rs. 8,000/- per month.
5. Sri Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner – landlord has instituted the eviction petition under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (‘Act’ for short) and the application filed by the respondent – tenant under Section 14 of the Act after the issue of notice by the petitioner demanding payment of arrears of rent before the Accommodation Controller has no bearing on the proceedings pending before the trial Court. He submitted that merely because the respondent-tenant has filed an application for fixation of fair rent, there is no reason for the trial Court to stop further proceedings with a direction that the agreed rent should be deposited in the Court. The learned Counsel urged that in the event, the respondent-tenant were to succeed in having the fair rent fixed at a reduced rate, it is always open for him to claim refund from the petitioner-landlord.
6. On the other hand, Sri Jestmal, learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the trial Court was right in stopping all further proceedings in view of the Decision in P.V. SHETTY v. B.S. GIRIDHAR AIR 1982 SC 83. In the said case, the Supreme Court was considering the question of stopping ail further proceedings in an eviction suit instituted by the landlord, in view of pending application for fixation of fair rent by tenant paying Rs. 640/- as monthly rent. If the fair rent were to be fixed at Rs. 500/- or less the tenant would be entitled to protection provided in the Act. In that context the Supreme Court ruled, that since the fixation of fair rent would leave impact on the suit regarding jurisdiction of the Court, till the determination of fair rent by the Controller, further proceedings before the Court should be stopped. The said Decision has no bearing on the facts and circumstances of this Case.
7. In fact in A.K. MOHIDEEN v. N.M. KRISHNA CHETTIAR, the aforesaid Decision is considered by this Court and the same is distinguished. Hence, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that further proceedings in the eviction case in the trial Court has to be stopped, till the Controller gives his decision on the application filed by the respondent-tenant for fixation of fair rent. The respondent is obliged to pay the agreed rent as long as the Controller has not fixed the fair rent. If his application were to be allowed by the Controller, the tenant can certainly ask for refund of any excess amount paid.
8. In the result, the order dated 11.7.1994 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore on I.A.X. stopping further proceedings in H.R.C. 1413/92 pending disposal of fair rent petition in F.R.5/92 is set aside.
9. Revision Petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to proceed further in H.R.C. No. 1413/1992.