Dadmiya Mohammadsaheb Nomin and Others vs Aktab Ahmad Nijamoddin Ahmed and Others

Murlidher Rao, J.-Petitions are tenants. They have challenged the order of the First Additional District Judge. Belgaum, in HR. CRPs. 50, 47, 46, 45 and 49 of 1989; by the said order revision petitions filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (''Act'' for short) have been dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners therein did not comply with the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Act.

At the out-set it has to be said that it is too late in the day for the petitioners to contend that Sec. 29(1) is not applicable to the revision petitions filed under Section 50 of the Act. This Court in Shiva v Devanna (ILR 1980(1) Kar. 706) after reviewing several other decisions has held that unless a tenant against whom proceedings for eviction is instituted under Section 21 of the Act, deposits with the court or pays to the landlord all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises upto the date of payment add continues to pay or deposit the rent as and when it becomes due thereafter, has no right to contest the eviction petition and he cannot file appeal or revision. The said view stands reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Medical Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., v K.C. Ajit (ILR 1984(2) Kar. 510).

This being the legal position the learned District Judge, was justified in holding that the revision petition filed without complying with the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Act, were not maintainable.

In these revision petition filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. Mr. K.I. Bhatta, learned Counsel for the petitions, contended that the court functioning under Rent Control Act, had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title and, therefore, Section 29 of the Act, is not applicable to the revision petition filed by the tenant where he disputes the he disputes the title of the landlord. It is maintained by the learned counsel that since the tenants have denied the status of the landlord, as owners of the premises, the revision petitions filed by them, cannot be rejected on the ground that they have not complied with Section 29. The learned counsel submitted that the question as to whether a person has title or not is a complicated question of fact and law which cannot be dealt with by the court functioning under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, and therefore this was a case wherein the court functioning under the Act, had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In support of these submissions the learned counsel relied upon two decisions of this Court reported in (1) Pratapsingh v Jaibunnisa Begaum (AIR 1989 Kar. 70) and (2) Mangalamba v Sulochana Bai (ILR 1988 Kar. 3374). According to the learned counsel the payment or deposit of rents arises only in cases where relationship and title of landlord is admitted. Where it is disputed, to investigate such a ground, it is not necessary to comply with Section 29 of the Act.

A reading of Section 50 of the Act, makes it manifest that the said provision contemplates all revision petitions filed by the tenants in a proceeding arising out of Section 21, between the parties irrespective of the grounds taken. The "contest" by the tenant includes all grounds of contest whether it be regarding the status of the parties, relationship of landlord and tenant or denial of grounds on which eviction is sought. It is the availment of remedy that attracts the condition imposed by Section 29 of the Act, and not the grounds on which the contest, defence or resistance is based. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel in Pratapsingh v Jaibunnisa Begaum (AIR 1989 Kar. 70) does not attract the point now in issue.

Indeed this court has consistently held that the jurisdictional issue, namely the relationship of landlord and tenant has to be decided by the court functioning under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, (See 1965(1) Mys.L.J. 560 followed in 1971(2) Mys.L.J. 371). Therefore, among the other grounds of contest, this is one of the grounds. The tenant whenever required to file a revision, arising out of eviction proceedings has to deposit or pay the rent before seeking registration of civil revision petition. He cannot be heard to say anything, unless he complies with this condition.

In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel viz., ILR 1988 Kar. 3374, the learned Single Judge was dealing with a case where the point to be considered was one arising in the civil suit. That was not a case which dealt with the applicability of the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Act, to a revision petition filed under Section 50 of the Act. Therefore that decision does not help the learned counsel.

The learned counsel placed reliance on an unreported decision of this court in C.R.P. 2544 of 1989 disposed of on 2-12-1989 (Muninanjappa v R. Manuel and another). The point canvassed before the learned Chief Justice did not cover the point now debated. The learned Chief Justice on facts held thus:

"In these circumstances it is not open to the learned Small Causes Judge in a summary proceedings to decide the question of title. What he had to find out was whether the denial of title by the petitioner herein was a bona fide denial or it was just for the sake of ''denial''. In this case. I am of the view that the denial is bona fide. Consequently, the order of eviction has to be set-aside and it is hereby set-aside. However, it is made clear that the question of title will depend on the ultimate result in the suit."

For the reasons stated above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, in HR. CRPs. 50, 47, 46, 45 and 49 of 1989 These revisions fail. Accordingly they are dismissed. No costs.

Petitions dismissed.

1990 (2) kar.l.j. 64

(A) Constitution of India - Art. 22(1), (3) & (5) - Right to consult and to be defended by an Advocate guaranted by Art. 22(1) taken away from a person who is detained under a preventive detention law by Art. 22(3) - Opportunity of making representation against detention provided u/Art. 22(5) - Where complicated questions of fact and law are involved detenue may seek an opportunity to engage a Counsel for consultation; such cases being exceptional detenue required to make out a clear case for legal assistance - In case request is rejected, prejudice caused to detenue to be clearly established by him - Right to consult and to be defended by an Advocate being not part of the right of detenue, non-consideration of request of detenue by itself would not vitiate the detention - Case-law discussed.

HELD: Vide paras 7 & 8 of the Order.

(B) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Sec. 3(1) - Art. 22(5) of Constitution of India - Duty of Detaining Authority to furnish all material documents to detenue as part of furnishing grounds of detention to enable detenue to make his rep resentation properly u/Art. 22(5) - Non-consideration of materials which is not basic and vital would not affect validity of order; similarly non-furnishing of copies of such materials to detenue would not vitiate detention - Explained.

HELD: Vide paras 14,16 of the Order.