Venkataramanappa vs Narayanachar

Shivashankar Bhat, J.—The trial Court no doubt has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Sudhakar Vs. Lakshamma, to hold that the petitioner has defaulted again and again and explanation is not forthcoming as to why the proceedings should not stop. The learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord also pointed out that on several occasions the petitioner has been committing default and earlier he was in arrears of rent since about the year 1983 and his conduct throughout does not require any sympathetic consideration.

In Sudhakar Vs. Lakshamma, this Court stated that once a determination is made u/s 29(2), thereafter, the question of further determination does not arise and if there is any default by the tenant thereafter, it is the duty of the tenant to show cause |against any action u/s 29(4). As and when the tenant makes the deposit and if there is a delay, the showing cause should be a part of the action in depositing the rent. This Court did not state that the tenant is not entitled to show cause against an action u/s 29(4). One cannot say what situations will arise in a man''s life and no principle of universal application governing all situations can be stated in a rigid formula; there may be circumstances justifying a sympathetic attitude towards an innocent, non-contumacious tenant. In the instant case, while depositing the subsequent arrears, the tenant has simultaneously explained the reasons for the defaults; the cause against stoppage of proceedings was shown as part of and incidental to the process of depositing the rents.

Admittedly, in this case the tenant is a flower vendor. The rent is only Rs. 15/- per month. This explanation is that his wife was seriously ill and he could not deposit the amount of Rs. 15/- Whatever may be the objections of the landlord, the fact remains that -the petitioner-tenant is in a very difficult position. A sympathetic attitude will have to be shown while appreciating his explanation. In the circumstances, I set aside the order under revision. The deposit made shall be accepted and paid over to the landlord. The trial Court shall expedite the main matter and shall dispose of the main case before the end of January, 1991. It is also clarified that in case the petitioner commits any further default a very strict view shall be taken u/s 29(4). The C.R.P. is allowed accordingly.