- (1.)The landlord/respondent filed a suit for eviction of the tenant-appellant on the ground available under clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter the "Act", for short). Though the eviction was sought for on other grounds as well but this is the only ground on which eviction has been ordered by the High Court, and therefore, we shall confine ourselves to the question of availability of this ground for eviction.
(2.)The High Court has found that on the date of initiation of proceedings, the tenant-appellant was in arrears of rent which he neither paid nor tendered within two months of the date of service of notice on him demanding payment of the arrears of rent. However, it has also been found that the tenant-appellant had paid some amount by way of advance rent at the time of creation of tenancy. The details of the arrears and the advance rent are not relevant; suffice it to say if the amount of advance rent is adjusted against the amount of arrears found due and payable by the tenant then he is not in arrears. On the other hand, if the amount of advance rent is not available for adjustment then the tenant is in arrears. Another relevant fact which is not in controversy is that the building wherein the tenancy premises are situated was constructed in the year 1977 when the tenant was inducted into the tenancy premises. The period of default in payment of rent is referable to the years 1978 to 1980. The eviction proceedings were commenced in the year 1982 when the period of 5 years from the date of construction of the building had not expired.
(3.)According to Section 18 of the Act, the landlord is prohibited from receiving by way of advance rent any amount exceeding two months rent. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 2 provides that Part III of the Act which consists of Sections 14 to 18 (both inclusive) shall not apply to a building constructed after the 1st day of August, 1957 for a period of 5 years from the date of construction of such building. Thus up to the date of the filing of the suit, undisputedly Section 18 was not applicable to the building wherein the tenancy premises are situated.