- (1.)This is a petition under S.50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, directed against the order on IA. No.3 in HRC. No. 108 of 1968 passed by the Additional Munsiff, Hubli on 21-7-1969.
(2.)The facts of this case are not in dispute. The petitioner before this Court is the tenant, against whom HRC. Nd.108 of 1968 was filed by the respondent for his eviction on grounds which are not material for our purpose. On 7-1-1969 the landlord filed an application under S.29 (4) of the Act praving that all further proceedings be stopped and that the tenant be directed to put the landlord in possession of the premises as he had failed to pay the arrears of rent and make the necessary deposits as contemplated by sub-sec. (1) of S.29. It is common ground that the tenant deposited Rs.72 on 8-4-1969 towards the arrears upto 22-4-1969 (inclusive). So the tenant contended that as he had complied with the requirements of sub- sec. (1) of S.29 he was not liable to put the landlord into possession under sub-sec. (4) of S.29, The learned Munsiff took an erroneous view of the legal position and stated that the arrears should have been paid within 3 months from the date of the application " as prescribed under R.8 of the Mvsore Rent Control Rules " He further proceeded to observe. " therefore, It is clear that there is a failure on the part of the opponent td deposit the rent for 3 months or pav the rent " for the above said peridd to the applicant or his Counsel. It may be noted that R.8 refer" to as indicated in the marginal note . 'deposit of rent under R.19'. The learned Munsiff seems lost sigh of the fact that he was dealing with a case under S.29 and not under S.19. S.29(1) of the Art lavs down that no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under S.21, shall be entitled to contest the application unless he has paid or pays to the landlord as the case may be all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises upto the date of payment and deposits or continues to deposit any rent which mav subsequently fall due. This sub-Faction does not prescribe any date within which arrears of rent should be deposited or paid after the application under S.29 has been made. All that it lays down is that the payment of arrears shall cover rent upto the date of deposit or pavment: the sub-section further renuires that the tenant should gd on paying the rent from month to month as it falls due subseauentlv. That this is the position of the law is covered bv the decisions of this Court in Shivalinaappa v. Dattu Appanna, (1967) 1 Mys.L.J. 378. and Ayesha Siddiqua Begaun v. V. V. Sheik Kutty, (1968) 2 Mys.L.J. 5.
(3.)Mr. S. C. Javali, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent- landlord contended that if sub-sec. (2) of S.29 and Rule 9 df the rules were read together it should follow that unless the arrears of rent paid within the date specified in Rule 9 there cannot be any compliance with sub-section(1) of S.29. I am not prepared to accept this argument. Sub-sec. (2) of S.29 lays down that the deposit of the rent under sub-sec. (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed. Sub-rule(1) df R.9 reads as follows :
"9(1). The time within which a deposit of rent under sub-sec. (1) of S.29, may be made shall be fifteen days of the last date fixed in the agreement of tenancy with the landlord for payment of the rent or in the absence of such agreement fifteen days from the last date of month next following that for which the rent is payable."
The submission of the learned Advocate is that this rule is applicable not only to the payment of monthly rent but even to the payment of arrears. That such an argument is untenable is indicated by the following words occurring in the rule itself, namely, " fifteen days from the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable ". Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 provides for payment of monthly rent. It provides for payment of monthly rent where a date had been fixed by the contract between the parties; it also provides for payment of monthly rent where a date had not been fixed by the contract between the parties. It is obvious from sub- sec. (1) of S.29 that the deposit or deposits contemplated therein are of two kinds. The first is the deposit or payment of all the arrears upto the date of payment. The date within which the arrears should be paid has not been covered by Rule 9 which, as already indicated, is intended to regulate payment of monthly rent. The only obligation on the tenant to deposit the arrears is to deposit all the arrears that might have fallen due upto the date of payment or that might have fallen due upto the date of the deposit he makes. In this view of the legal position, the learned Munsiff was clearly in error in applying Rule 8 to the facts of the case and passing an order under sub-sec. (4) of S.29.
;