http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4534 of 2001

PETITIONER: K.A. Grace & Anr.

RESPONDENT: M.S. Lakshmipathi Naidu & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2005

BENCH: B.P. SINGH & ARUN KUMAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

B.P. Singh, J.

       This appeal by Special Leave is preferred by the  petitioners impugning the judgment and order of the High  Court of Karnataka, Bangalore of April 10, 2000 in HRRP  No.668 of 1999.  The aforesaid Revision Petition was  preferred by the petitioners against the order of eviction  passed by the XVI Additional Small Causes Judge,  Bangalore city dated 16th March, 1999 in HRC No.2800 of  1992 on the grounds specified in Clauses (f) and (h) under  the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka  Rent Control Act, 1961, namely on the grounds of subletting  of premises and bona fide personal need of the landlord.                                                                                                                                The Revision Petition was presented on June 25, 1999  and was taken back to remove certain defects, whereafter it  was presented on July 9, 1999.  Only a day earlier, on July  8, 1999, the petitioners sent to the landlord a sum of  Rs.2400/- by money order representing the arrears of rent  due and payable to the landlord on the day of presentation of  the Revision Petition.  The High Court held that since on the  date of presentation of Revision Petition namely on June 25,  1999, the arrears of rent had not been paid to the landlord,  or deposited in Court, the Revision Petition was liable to be  rejected for non-compliance with the provision of Section  29(1) of the Act.  Section 29(1) of the Act provides as under:-           "29. Deposit and payment of rent during  the pendency of proceedings for eviction.  \026 (1) No tenant against whom an application  for eviction has been made by a landlord  under Section 21, shall be entitled to contest  the application before the Court under that  Section or to prefer or prosecute (a revision  petition under Section 50 against an order  made by the Court on application under  Section 21) unless he has paid or pays to the  landlord or deposits with the Court or the  District Judge or the High Court, as the case  may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of  the premises upto the date of payment or  deposits and continues to pay or to deposit  any rent which may subsequently become due

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

in respect of the premises at the rate at which  it was last paid or agreed to be paid, until the  termination of the proceedings before the  Court or the District Judge or the High Court,  as the case may be".

       This appeal alongwith Civil Appeal No.4533 of 2001  (K. Raghunath Vs. Chandrasekhar and another) came up for  hearing before this Bench earlier.  Civil Appeal No.4533 of  2001 was allowed and the case was remitted to the High  Court for disposal of the revision petition on merit.  The  aforesaid judgment is reported in JT 2004 (10) SC 404.  We  have in the aforesaid judgment noted the legal provisions  and the decisions having a bearing on the question involved.   The instant appeal was not disposed of since it was  mentioned before us that the parties were negotiating a  settlement out of Court.  We gave some time to the parties  for this purpose, but ultimately they informed us that the  parties have not been able to work out a settlement.

       We have noticed in K. Raghunath (supra) that though  Section 29(2) provides that the tenant ought to deposit the  rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction within  the time and in the manner prescribed, Rule 9 which  prescribed the manner and time within which the deposit  contemplated by Section 29 shall be made only lays down  that such deposit may be made within 15 days of the last  date fixed in the agreement of tenancy with the landlord for  payment of the rent, or in the absence of such agreement,  15 days from the last date of the month next following that  for which the rent is payable.

       Section 50 which provides for a revision does not lay  down the period within which a revision may be preferred by  the aggrieved party.  Section 50 begins with the words "The  High Court may, at any time call for and examine".

       Having regard to the fact that the position in law was  not very clear, the High Court of Karnataka in two judgments  laid down that such a revision must be preferred within 90  days, though the said period of 90 days was not the period  of limitation prescribed by law, and the period prescribed by  the judgments was only by way of guidance for the exercise  of discretion in such matters.

       Keeping in view the above position, we find that the  order of eviction was passed on March 16, 1999 and a  revision was preferred on June 25, 1999.  It was re- presented on July 9, 1999.  It is not in dispute that the  arrears of rent had not been paid when the Revision Petition  was initially presented on June 25, 1999, but before its re- presentation on  July 9, 1999 the amount representing the  arrears of rent had been sent to the landlord by money order  on  July 8, 1999.  The question is whether in such  circumstance the Revision Petition ought to be dismissed as  not maintainable on the ground that when it was presented  first the arrears of rent had not been either paid to the  landlord or deposited in Court as required, though that was  done before it was re-presented on July 9, 1999.

       In K. Raghunath’s (supra) we have followed the  principle laid down by this Court in The Commissioner of  Income Tax, Bombay Vs. M/s. Filmistan Ltd. : 1961 3 SCR  893 which in effect lays down the principle that where a  period of limitation is prescribed by law for preferring an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

appeal, and the law requires the tax to be paid before  presentation of memorandum of appeal, the appellant is  entitled to pay the tax till the last date of limitation prescribed  by law.  Thus even if the appellant had earlier presented the  appeal without payment of tax, the appeal could only be held  to be not properly filed until the tax is paid.

       As we have noticed, the provisions of the Karnataka  Act in question are not happily worded.  In fact, there is no  limitation prescribed for preferring a Revision Petition.  In  any event, in view of the guidelines laid down by the High  Court,  if there was a delay of about 15 days in making the  deposit or presenting the Revision Petition, the same ought  to have been condoned and the revision decided on merit.   We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to discuss the  various legal submissions urged before us, and which were  also urged before the High Court, on the question as to  whether the Revision Petition shall be deemed to have been  preferred on June 25, 1999, when it was initially presented,  or on July 9, 1999, when it was re-presented after payment  of arrears of rent.  We, therefore, allow this appeal and remit  the matter to the High Court for disposal of the Revision  Petition in accordance with law.

       We may only observe that the Karnataka Rent Control  Act, 1961 has been repealed by the Karnataka Rent Act,  1999.  Though, the parties urged before us submissions  based on the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, having regard to the  changes brought about by the Act of 1999, we have  advisedly not expressed any opinion on those questions,  and we leave it to the High Court to consider those questions  if raised before it.  There will be no order as to costs.