AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vishwanath, J
Heard both Counsel.
This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26-9-1995 passed in HRC No. 2633/1993 on the file of the Small Cause Judge, Bangalore, rejecting IA-V filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.
IA-V was filed by the petitioner who was respondent-2 in the Court below.
The Office has raised an objection that the Revision Petition cannot be entertained without the rent being paid or deposited. For the office objections the petitioner has stated that he is not liable to pay the rent because he is not a tenant or a sub-tenant. In the main Petition in the Court below the landlord has filed the same u/s 21(1)(f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The landlord is the first respondent in this Court.
In the Eviction Petition the landlord has stated clearly that the first respondent in the Court below (2nd respondent herein) is the tenant and the first respondent has sub-let in favour of the 2nd respondent (Revision petitioner herein).
From these allegations it is clear that, even according to the landlord, the present Revision petitioner, who is the second respondent in the Court below, is only a sub-tenant and not a tenant.
Learned Counsel for the contesting 1st respondent-landlord drew my attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the objections filed by the 2nd respondent to the Eviction Petition. In para-15 of objections to the Eviction Petition, it is stated thus:-
"The respondent has not sublet and his occupation is legal and the same has been recognised. In view of the same, the occupation of the respondent is not that of sub-lessee and the respondent has been paying rents regularly to the owner".
In para-16 thereof the 2nd respondent has stated thus:-
"The respondent has been carrying on business on the premises since 1989 and they have been paying rents".
It is clear from what is extracted above that the petitioner does not admit that he is a tenant. The 2nd respondent has not used -the word "tenant". No doubt the stand of the petitioner, who was the second respondent in the Court below, speaks like the Oracle at Delphi. But then one thing is clear. The revision petitioner does not admit that he is a tenant under the landlord who has filed the Eviction Petition.
The learned Counsel for the landlord relied on the Decision of this Court reported in Medical Research Laboratory Private Limited Vs. K.C. Ajith, wherein it has been laid down that before prosecuting a Revision Petition the tenant is bound to deposit rent or he should have paid the rent to the landlord. This Decision imposes an obligation on the Tenant, not on the sub-tenant.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am of opinion that the Revision Petition is maintainable and the Revision Petitioner need not have deposited the rent