JUDGEMENT
Thomas, J. -
(1.)When this appeal came up for consideration on 7-4-1995 before R. M. Sahai and N. Venkatachala, JJ., learned Judges ordered this to be listed before a larger Bench, in view of the preliminary objections raised by the landlord-respondent regarding maintainability of the appeal (the reference order is reported in (1995) 2 Suppl. SCC 539).
(2.)This appeal by special leave is against the order of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing a revision petition filed by the appellant-tenant under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") challenging an order of eviction passed against the appellant. While dismissing the revision petition on 25-7-1994, learned Judge of the High Court granted six months' time to appellant-tenant for vacating the premises in question and directed him to file an undertaking within 4 weeks. Appellant-tenant has, pursuant to the said direction, filed the undertaking that he would vacate the premises within six months.
(3.)The preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the tenant is precluded from approaching this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India after giving the aforesaid undertaking before the High Court. In support of the said objection learned Counsel cited the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court (K. Jayachandra Reddy and S. C. Agrawal, JJ.) in R. N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683 , wherein it was held as follows:
"By furnishing the said undertaking the petitioner elected to avail the protection from eviction from the premises and he enjoyed the said protection till the passing of the order by the Supreme Court on March 26, 1992, staying dispossession of the petitioner. Having done so, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and assail the said judgment of the High Court."