Decided on December 10,1969

ASHOK Appellant


- (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 premises.
(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 tenant. The learned Munsiff dismissed that application with the following order:
"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.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.