. % A
HRRP.No.233.2008
IN THE HIGH coum or KARNA'I';\KA AT BAP5'(§Ai}QfEE
DATEDETHIS THE 15??! DAY:OCFOBE.fii; =
THE HOBFBLE MRs.{1Us'rI U':' 33 YEARS' "
R/AT N9.'--KQTEG.AL£,I TULASI THOTA
CH£CKALALBAGH,.' NEAF3 WATER BOARD
VQFFIGE; BAGNALQRE --5.6GO53.
A % V M prsrmonezre
(By Sx'i:"£1'R Sli N.i5fi.§2E§£I, ADV.)
K 'i5R0MO'I'ERS Pvr um
N'_O.3~-,_. 4'11; (moss
:;;Am3mNAGaR
* BANGALORE - 560009
(R133? BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
A M R R SHETTY)
RESPONDENT
(By Sri: L s VENI{A’I’AKRiSHNA, ADV.)
THIS HRRP FILED U/S 46 OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2608 PASSED IN
HRC.NO.22I[2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF’ JUDGE,
COURT OF’ SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, SFOPPING ALL
HRRP.No.233.2GG8
«.2…
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND HOLDING THAT THE
PETITIONER HEREIN ES DIRECTED TO _;.PU’_1’*-._ THE
LANDLORD/RESPONDENT HEREIN IN Possassxowgop’
THE PETITION SCHEDULE PREMISES ..:’__wI=THi–r~1″ –:-QNE
MONTH. L” ‘ ‘
This HRRP coming on for IA1;>:y11ss:o1~3’o
court delivered the fol1oWi11g:- . o_ A
o R Q ‘E._l3?j” *
This revision pctifioifig isyxhe ng1n’ kg’
the order dated ,.2s.s.2oro:s.éf ‘:im:;cho..7an further
proceedings in stopped and he
_ gut the msponcient/landlord in
of. schedule premises within” one
month tiic da£c of the order, failing which the
‘ hoz’o£o«Ais at liberty to take possession of the
course of law.
2. ” ,__ For the sake of oonvenionoo the partfies shall be
u * to in terms of thfifi’ status before the trial oouxt as
per thoir jural relationship.
3. The respondent] landlord filed HRC.No.221/2003
under Section 2′.?(1)(a) as (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Baring the pcndcncy of the said petition an applimiion
/*5?’
HRRF.NQ. 233.2808
under Section. 45 of the said Act was filed by on
23.2.2005 directing the petitioner] tenant
of rent from 1.2.2005 to
Rs.94,792/ ~. On the said on4~.._
22.2.2008 by the trial §£’ating
question of the trial court of metnt
since the same court and
thereby directcd the Pay arrears of mm:
on or bcfmfg;-. 4 14.3.2007 in the said
order) agrntiitlp 11: is an admitted position
thatthc. tt-§nsi_tt1t:’1i3.as ‘depxssit the arrears of rent on or
befcsrc = “t the matter stood thus, an
appficfififin Wis tenant for m-calling the order
tt.22.2.”209tsV. W’l’:’J:1e said application was heard and by
t1a?;i&.V19.4.20O8 it was rejected and the tenant was
._ Show cause as to why he could not be
dixectéd -:5 put the Iandkmd in possession of the schedule
.. ptcmisés by stopping ail further proceedings Imdcr Section
” of the Act. The case was then adjourned to 31.5.2008.
–F111 reply to the direction mganiing show cause on 1.8.2008, a
memo was filed stating certain reasons for the fixiiure to
deposit the rents on or before 14.3.2008. Subscqucnfly, the
matter was posted to 28.8.2098 on which date the impuwed
%-
HRRP.No.233.2O08
.. 4 ..
order has been passed. Aggrievcd by the said order, the
teraant has preferred this revision petition.
4. A1: this stage it is relevant to notice L’
proceedings which occurred “tho of: V
application filed under QKCL ”
petitioner] tenant have filed oefozo’ V
the trial court which was _cha’}1enging’§thc Samar:
HRRP.Nc-.282/2006 _p an order dated
1.2.2007, the at the
stage of ‘V ._.SHbj’t’;(:t’ of this revision
pcfifion Wao’ ptigewvalidity of an order dated
of Commissioner to pc–
measure tire Thereafter the tenant
V. – an for re~calling of the order dated
said application for re–ca}hn” g was also
court by order dated 12.2.2008, after
obsctrvinig that theme was arrears of rent to the tune of
“ii Ro;’1′;«,49,000/- and that the tenant had failed to deposit the
orxtire arrears of rent. As against the order dated 19.4.2008
passoclbythctxialcourtwhichhaddismissedthe
application for re-calling the order dated 22.2.2008,
HRRF’.N’o.I50/2008 was fifi before this court and
HRRP.No.167/2008 was filed chalienging the onrier dated
fig
HRRP.No.233.2008
_ 5 ..
6. I have heard S1-i.D.R.Sunda;tes11, {earned counsel for
the pefifimncr and Sri.H.S.Vekatak:rishna, 1ea1’ax:d..___counsc1
for the respondent. – ‘ -.
7. 1: is submitted on behalf of the pctiijJ’bne!’_’
orclar passed by the trial court is not in ‘the’
provision and object and H
under Section 45(4) of thcfgcat as fi;{‘c§én
refizrred to the reply by and that
there is no diacussicfiz’ ihii §il€>WI1 by 1IJJI1′
let ;;1¢fi;e% ciéiéfnziinatiaon of the suficiency of
the submits that the mfcztmcc made
to the arm shy court by the trial court was with
to thc§V”stags«’prior to Section 45(4) being considered
‘ impugcd order was with regard to the
” . cause shown for the non-fiayment of rents and
there has bccn failure to cxerc1se’ jur:sd’ icfion
” » Scciian 45(4) and he hcnm mquests this court to set
§a§ide the order and direct the trial court to continue the
proceedings from that stage.
8. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent
that the conduct of the tenant in the instant case has to be
&*
HRRP.No.233.2008
…. 7 ….
taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of
the sufficiency of cause and that the petitioner] tenant has
gone on filing application after application befoxeiihe trial
court and not being successful has
successive revision petitioners before thfie
whole object and pum of the }s¢tat5¢n¢r_.51¢1ay I A’
stagate the proceedings,
admittedly there is failure to-.5’1:épositvihe.ienf:3
shown for the non-(la-Qositszif’ of Before 14.3.2008
are not suflicxe nt ‘law the exercise of
Section 45(4) is just1&d’
and file V e any interfiaxence by this court.
9;; eete-ef’the rival contentions the only point that
‘ ‘vexixiiy-_c0nside:’ation is whether the trial court was
” uexercising its power to stop all further
pm”ee::i e I and directing the tenant to put the Landlord in
” V. x pesseesion of the petition schedule premises on the facts
circumstances ofth1s’ case?
10. It is not in dispute that this couzt by its orders on
more than one occasion had observed that the
mtitionerf tenant was in arrears of rent and the same was
fif
HRRP.No.233.2008
also determinm to be Rs.1,49,000]~ for the to
2003. In fact on account of the non-deposit fthf:
application for recalling of the order
in HRRP.No.282]2006 was ‘a~I a_d§::i§{t 2
while considering the _tx:1;§ant;$”
repeatedly observed that and mg:
thc tenant hm same the revision pcfitions which petitixrnerl tenant challenging' were dismisfl on Ixwrits. that this court did not
Viz) oatdcr passed. under Secfion
45 c if Acf which an application was made
_ _ A _ ‘,_,,_, Hggfpla. t’¢7Q9.
by the Li*:1rsp:>n;:icnAtf landloxd before the trial 00 Also
0′?
vvthc Z of the said application, several
‘ before this court, but they had no
” n”rxu’ féflfisiicmfion of the case under Section 45(4) of
tin’, .V
Having become unsucc¢ssfuI in that: revision petition,
T the position became clear that the tenant was in arneaxs of
rent and that the order passed by the trial court on
22.22.2008 and 19.4.2008 were uphcki. It is also of
significance to note: that the revision petitions, which upheld
35,.
HRRP.No.233.20O8
.. 9 …..
the orders dated 22.12.2008 and 19.4.fl8 was at a stage
prior to the considerafion of the case undcr of
the Act. After the dismissal of HRRRNO.
HRRP.No.167/2008 which were filed against, am
19.4.2003 and 22.2.2003
the dimctiosx issued by
tenant filed his reply on fof
the failure to b8Vf(‘5I’c9Ax 14.3.2008.
Thareafitcr on 28.8.2008 filed one more
11161110 with given on 1.8.2008
at flue certain reasons for tbs
an or before 14.3.2008 and the
same isu 8.€>.Vf'()§J”f.§§FS:
” respondent has thus deposited the
‘ at various dates indicated above,
to f¢’h’ng of the revision petition on two
.moa’a*z’or:, no expfanation was given, in other
“words the respondent was prevented fmm
8′ cause due to the reasons which was
beyond human control andfiuther it is very much
pertinent to state that he had spent huge sums of
money for the treatment of bath the respomienfs
nwther, aunt, who died u:ith:’n a gap of few
months recently, and his mzsiraess atso go? totafly
flopped as he was not able to concentrate on it
ciuetosidcness ofhis motherandaunt, abauia
year back and sqfemd hecwy loss also. Thus
natural calamities, loss in the business and
proaecuting revision have all rmufted in the order
dated 19.4.2008, directing the respondent under
Section 45(4) of the Act to Show cause, why he
%’
HRR1?.N0.233.2008
.. lg ..
shafl not be dine?! to put the petitioner in
possession of the petition schedule
stopping all fiuiher prooeeciings by 31.5,200’8?._
and it pertinent to note that on 29.5.200g3’i1s e;f_;L.
HRRP.No. 150/20308 was fled and the 3_’.e_4._,_ ‘ _
triaf was subsequentiy siayed and – ‘
pendency of this revision
HRRP 167/2008 was a1so’fiIed.a:”.-xi ‘.3’he$e; ‘
revisions were 127.2008 3.
corg°irming the orders 22.2.2908,
19.4.2008 respe£1iveI§;.*<_ " 'j V
12. Under Section 45(4) cfrcnt of the
tenant failing to on rents which are
determined asA.a1ma1’s.n:f_ man ‘Lthe tenant shows
Sufism’ nt t’;’1:c’ court can stop ail
furtncr anfl an order directing the tenant
to pufflgxé “pins-.séssion of the premises or dismiss
the: ..appnni petition as the case may be.
.. _ A ‘ffiérefom’; in avoid an adverse cider being passed
to explain the failurc to deposit the arrears of
— inént to sntisfaction of the court: in as much as the cause
shawnought to be sufiicicnt.
I3. Admittedly, in the instant case there was failure to
deposit armars of rent as ordered by the trial court and the
triai court had rightly directed the tenant to Show cause or
explain the reasons for his failure. Hcrwever, when the
-{
/«U
HRRP.No.233.2008
_ 11 _
explanation was gven by the tenant on 1.8.2008 theme has
been no refezenee to the same in the let
aionse there being any determinafion as to
shown was suficient or not in No idbfibié ‘jexIe’r_y ‘_’te:::;a_1:it» 1
who is in cxxzupatzion of the pmfiajses’ gay .
the meets on time and whee prdef
determma’ tion of arrears of m, adc by: he “n all
the more bound te pent as per the
directions of fhfi A13 tine ” 1337 the court.
However, has considered the
mm” umstances Zbfév i%w}iez’e”tehe t on account of
certa1z:a’ reasoné$’.«v§rh_ich. nt in law anti
explained by hm ‘ of the court can wnggle’
outatrf ._::§. the——rigour of Section 45(4) is not
fiexwtfom, the key Words under Section
axe suficient cause with regard to the
_ pa3;i::1eiitef”a:1ea1s of mats within the time fixed by
the ‘T *-
instant case although reply dated 1.8.2008 was
the direction to show cause, issued by the court
below on 31.5.2008 withcxut making any reference to the said
explanation, the trial court has straight away passed the
%
HRRP.NG. 233. 2308
.. ..
impugned order while observing that the respondeml tenant
had not made any efibrts to Show cause as to why.
not be directed to put the landlord in Wif
schedule premises by stopping
non-consideration of the mkfimt
pefitioncr and non-deteVt4mi1g.1ati<V:}1;,_ t}1::ia¥;
explanation ofiezed by the or not
for the failure to de§§'§.~at_ of bcfHr1:H 14.3.2003 is
an error appagfent iiité Hence for this
simple is liable to be set
asidefv ”
At st:_ex ge xeievancc to consider the citations
16, Vc;:u:~ se1..~’£or the petitioner has relied upon a
1~ef:bated..«’in 1990 (supplement; sec 213
‘ Vs. Hutu! O which amse under
. ” 38:. (4) of thc Kamataka Rent Conhnl Act, 1961
gs itexisted wherein it has been held that opportunity
A’ ’13:1_§1s1v:”‘bc given to Show cause or offer expianafion for the
$1i%>rt fall in the deposit of arrears of rent and since in the
said case no opportunity had been given the dismissal of the
HRRP. No. 233 . 2008
.. 17 _
mind while considering the explanation or delay oommitted
by him. When no explanation is ofiered, the queetion of
invoking the said principle does not arise, the
explanation has been ofiered by the tenant,
duty of the court to consider the same
determine the suficiency of of ”
the court were made in the*contexi.of”€.he L.
by the tenant in the said deeieioii that under
Section 29(4) which séceon 45(4) of
the Act have be ietages and that a
‘ made as such am! 331:1′
contemzion Wee .. é ,–~
One of1″1er–co11tention raised by the learned counsel
V thefieepiondent is on the conduct of the tenant in firefly,
.’a}’1″%’no’t.A.t§e3;\ei’eiting the rents on time and thereafier film’ g
3 revision petitions and recalling applications and
” V» trying to hoodwink the orders of the trial court as
as this court by not depositing the mute on time.
23. In mg} View it is not necessaxy to express any opinion
on this aspect of the matter at this stage, since the trial
court would have to ooneider the cause shown by the
*%
HRRP.No..’Z33.2008
….:18….
petitioner] tenant in not depositing the rents in
any obsexvatisons made on this submission
eonsiierafion of the explanation by the by ” =
court below.
24. For the reasons,— -» older
dated 28.8.2008 is is remanded
back to the ioonrt Veonsider the reply
dated in aooordancc
with the of the Act and thcxeafter to
pass oztiers’ in
25. 5 ~ is by the learned counsel for
. . = tbveiwesirioniient iaetifion for eviction was as
2003 and therefore, time may be fixed for
consistier the matter under Swtion 45 of the
Act. I’ eoasiderahie force in the submission made by the
counsel for the respondent. The trial couzt is
to re-consider the issue under Smtion 45(4) of the
Act within a period of one month after the appearance of the
parties before the trial court. Since both the parties are
W
HRRP.No.233.2008
…1g….
represented by counsel, it is ordered that the
appear before the triai court on 3. 1 1.2008.
KVX*