ABDUL KHADER USMAN Vs. MAHAMMAD HASHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the tenant. He is in occupation of the premises in question as a lessee under the respondent. The landlord had filed an application under S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act) in HRC No. 14 of 1974 on the file of the Munsiff, Sirsi, for recovery of possession of the premises from the tenant on the allegation that he was in arrears of rent and had failed to pay the same in spite of a statutory notice. During the pendency of that proceeding the landlord had also filed an application under S. 29 of the Act stating that the tenant was not entitled to contest the application having not paid the rents due. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, determined summarily on 21-8-1976, as provided under sub-sec. (3) of S. 29, that the tenant, being liable to pay monthly rent at Rs. 45, had committed default from September, 1971 to July, 1976, and was in arrears of Rs. 2,610 and should pay the same on or before 21-9-1976, and further directed that be should go on paying or deposit in Court the rent at that rate month by month during the pendency of that proceeding. That case was posted to 22-9-1976 awaiting compliance by the tenant of the said order. The tenant did not comply with that order. Therefore, the landlord requested the Court to take further action as provided in sub-sec. (4) of S. 29 of the Act. On 6-10-1976 the trial Court called upon the tenant to show cause for not stopping further proceedings. For tills purpose the case was get down te 16 10 1976. The tenant was absent. The trial Court made the following order :

(2.) That order was called in question by the tenant before the Dist. Judge, Karwar. The learned Dist. Judge, by his order dt. 29-7-1977 in HRC Revn. Petn. No. 34 of 1976 on his file, dismissed the revision as provided in sub-sec. (4) of S. 29 of the Act on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay or deposit the rents during the pendency of the revision before him. The said order is challenged by the tenant in this revision.

(3.) It is very relevant to note that what bad been challenged before the Dist. Judge in the revision was only the order of the Munslff dt. 16-10-1976. This fact is clear from the preamble portion of the memo of revision filed therein. It is also clear from this that the previous order dated 21-8-1976 of the Munsiff, which has been referred to above, had become final. It is by that order the Munsiff had determined, under sub-sec. (3) of S. 29 of the Act, the rate of rent payable per month and the quantum of arrears. It may also be relevant to note that in the objections he had filed in the trial Court, though the tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself, he had subsequently conceded before the Munsiff that he was the tenant (see the order-sheet dt. 31-7-1976 "maintained by the Munsiff).