ASHOK Vs. CHANDRAKANT DATTATRAYA KAMAT
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHANDRAKANT DATTATRAYA KAMAT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is an application under S.50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act,
1961 to revise the order passed by the Munsiff, Belgaum on 13-1-1969 on
an application filed by the petitioner under S.151 of CPC. praying that
the original application in HRC. No.169 of 1965 be restored to file and
heard on merits.
(2.)In order to decide the simple point that arises in the present revision
petition, it is necessary to refer to a few admitted facts. The present
petitioners filed an application under S.21 of the Mysore Rent Control
Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for eviction of the respondent on the
ground that the landlord needed the premises bona fide and reasonably
for his personal occupation and that the tenant had been in arrears of
rent. During the pendency of the application, the petitioners filed an
application under S.29 of the Act for stopping the proceedings on the
ground that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent as contemplated
by the provisions contained therein and for his eviction. It appears that
the tenant disputed the title of the landlord in the main petition and that
issue about the right of petitioner to claim eviction had not been decided
when an order under sub-sec. (4) of S.29 of the Act directing the tenant
to put the landlord in possession of the premises came to be passed. Being
aggrieved by this order, the tenant approached this Court in CRP. No.506
of 1968. This Court allowed that petition on 19th September, 1968 and set
aside the order passed by the Munsiff. During the course of the order this
Court indicated that if the landlord's title was disputed, it was the duty of
the Court to investigate in whom the title vested and that it was obligatory
on the person who claimed to be the owner of the premises to show that
he was entitled to recover the rent as also possession of the demised
(3.)It was after this order that the present petitioners filed an application
purporting to be one under S.151 CPC. praying that the HRC. proceedings
may be revived and fixed for hearing on merits in the light of
the observations made by this Court in the Revision Petition filed by the
The learned Munsiff dismissed that application with the following
"The petitioner has filed this petition to fix the case for hearing.
The case is already disposed off. If the petitioner wants any relief,
he may file Misc. Application to take the HRC. matter on board. As
there is no direction from High Court to proceed with the case,
the case cannot be proceeded unless there is Misc. Application to
restore the HRC. proceedings."
The petitioner challenges the correctness of this order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.