Holding

Section 50(1) does not prescribe a limitation period; a revision filed within the 90‑day guidance and with arrears paid within the period prescribed by Section 29 and Rule 9 cannot be dismissed on limitation grounds.

Summary

The landlord evicted the tenant under Sections 22(1)(h) and 22(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and the Small Causes Court ordered eviction on 4 February 2000. The tenant filed a revision petition under Section 50(1) on 6 April 2000, having sent the arrears of rent by money order on 11 April 2000. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the revision on 13 April 2000, holding that the arrears had not been deposited before the petition was filed, in violation of Section 29 and Rule 9. The Supreme Court held that Section 50(1) does not prescribe a limitation period; the 90‑day guidance is not a strict bar, and the arrears were paid within the period allowed by Rule 9 (by 15 April 2000). Consequently, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the revision on limitation grounds. The appeal was allowed, the matter remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits, and the tenant was directed to deposit further arrears within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 prescribes a limitation period for filing a revision petition.
Whether non‑payment of arrears of rent before filing a revision petition bars the revision under Section 29 and Rule 9 of the Rules.
Whether the Karnataka High Court was justified in dismissing the revision petition on the ground of limitation.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961s. 22(1)(h), s. 22(1)(p), s. 29, s. 50(1)

Subjects

rent controlevictionrevision petitionlimitation periodSection 29Section 50Karnataka Rent Control Actarrears of rentRule 9

Judgment

A K. RAGHUNATH
V.

CHANDRASEKHAR AND ANR.

DECEMBER I, 2004
B
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]

Rent Control & Eviction :

Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 : Section 22(1), (h) & (p).
c
Rules framed under-Rule 9-Revision petition-Limitation for filing
of-Non-payment of arrears of rent before filing of revision- Landlord filed
eviction petition against tenant under Section 22(1)(h) & (p)-Small Causes
Court passed eviction order on 4.2.2000-Tenant filed revision petition on
D 6.4.2000 under S.50(1)-Tenant neither deposited nor paid arrears of rent
before filing revision petition-But he sent the amount by money order to
the landlord on 11.4.2000-However, High Court dismissed the revision
petition on 13.4.2000-Correctness of-Held: Section 50 does not prescribe
a limitation period for preferring a revision petition -However, proceeding
on the basis that a revision petition could be preferred within 90 days,
E and the arrears of rent are not deposited within the said period, the revision
petition is liable to be dismissed-By the time the revision petition came
up for hearing before the High Court on 13.4.2000 the arrears of rent had
already been paid on 11.4.2000-Hence, High Court not justified in
dismissing the revision petition on ground of limitation-Further, there was
F no delay in paving the arrears of rent, reading Section 29 of the Act and
Rule 9 of the Rules.

The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the
appellant-tenant under Section 22(1)(h) and 22(l)(p) of the Karnataka
Rent Control Act, 1961. The Small Causes Court passed an order of
G eviction on 4.2.2000. The appellant filed a revision petition before the
High Court on 6.4.2000 under Section 50(1) of the Act. The appellant,
before filing the revision petition, ne.ither deposited nor paid the arrears
of rent, but he sent the same by money order to the respondent on 11-
4-2000. The High Court dismissed the revision petition on 13.4.2000 for
H non-compliance with the requirements of Section 29 of the Act. Hence
590
K. RAGHUNATH v. CHANDRASEKHAR 591

the appeal. A

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961
J which provides for a revision to the High Court against the order of the B
' Court of Small Causes does not prescribe a limitation period for
preferring the revision. However, the High Court has held that such a
revision must be preferred within 90 days. [595-B-C-D]

Obalappa v. Alamelamma, AIR (1983) 1 RCR 258, referred to.
c
2.1. Proceeding on the basis that a revision could be preferred
within 90 days, though Section 50 does not lay down the limitation for
preferring such a revision, and the arrears of rent are not deposited
within the period of 90 days, the situation poses no difficulty, because
in that event the Court may dismiss the revision unless the revisionist D
is able to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making
the deposit within such time. (595-E-F-G]

2.2. In the instant case, the revision petition was referred against
the order of the Small Causes Court dated 4.2.2000 on 6.4.2000. The
revision petition, therefore, was filed within time. The arrears of rent E
were paid on 11.4.2000. Therefore, by the time the revision came up for
hearing before the High Court on 13.4.2000, the arrears of rent had
already been paid within the period allowed for preferring the revision
petition. In these circumstances, the revision petition should have been
entertained on merit and the High Court should not have dismissed it F
on the ground of limitation. (595-G-H; 596-A-B]

3.1. Ifit were permissible to compute the limitation under Rule 9 of
the Rules framed under the Act, in view of the fact that the last date
contemplated in the agreement of tenancy for payment of rent is not
known, the limitation may be computed on the basis of time prescribed in G
the last part of Section 29(1) namely "15 days from the last date of the
month next following that for which the rent is payable". (596-D-EJ

3.2. In the instant case, the order of eviction was passed on 4.2.2000.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it may be taken that the H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A rent for the month of February was due and payable. The month next
following that for which the rent is payable will be the month of March,
2000 and 15 days from the last day of March would be 15.4.2000. Even
if the limitation period allowed for depositing the arrears of rent is so
computed, the payment made on 11.4.2000 was well within time.
B Therefore, there was in fact no delay in paying the arrears of rent,
reading Section 29 of the Act with Rule 9 of the Rules. [596-E-F-G]

CIT v. Mis. Filmistan Ltd., [1961] 3 SCR 893, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4533 of
c 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.2000 of the Karnataka High
Court in H.R.R.P. No. 227 of 2000.

D Gaurav Jain and M.K. Dua for the Appellant.

G.V. Chandrashekar and P.P. Singh for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was 'delivered by

E This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgement of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 13th April, 2000 in H.R.R.P
No.227of2000. The appellant before us is a tenant and the respondents are
the landlords. By the impugned judgement and order the High Court has
dismissed the Revision Petition preferred by the appellant holding that the
F arrears of rent had not been paid or deposited by the appellant as required,
in the manner contemplated by Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control
Act, I 96 l (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before filing of the Revision
Petition, and that no explanation had· been given for not depositing the rent
before filing the Revision Petition under Section 50(1) of the Act.

G Th.e facts of the case are not in dispute.

The respondent-landlords filed a petition for eviction of the appellant
under Section 22(1)(h) and 22(1)(p)of the Act which was disposed of by
the Small Causes Court allowing the petition and passing an order of
H eviction against the appellant by judgement and order of February 4, 2000.
K. RAGHUNA TH v. CHANDRASEKHAR 593

The appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the High Court on 6th A
April, 201)0 under Section 50( l) of the Act. Before preferring the Revision
Petition he had neither deposited nor paid the arrears of rent, but he sent
the same by money order to the landlords on 11th April, 2000. The matter
came up before the High Court on 13th April, 2000 when the High Court
passed the impugned order dismissing the Revision Petition for non B
compliance with requirements of Section 29 of the Act.

Counsel for the appellant argued before us that there was, in fact, no
delay in filing the Revision Petition as also in payment of arrears of rent
and therefore, the High Court was in error in dismissing the Revision
Petition on that ground. Counsel for the respondent has supported the order C
of the High Court and drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of the
Act.

The relevant part of Section 29 of the Act provides as follows :-
D
"29. Deposit and payment of rent during the pendency of
proceedings for eviction.-

(I) 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 E
prefer or prosecute a revision petition under Section 50 against an
order made by the Court on application under Section 2(1) unless
he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Court or
the District Juuge 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 F
deposits and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may
subsequently become due 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.
G
(2) The deposit of the rent under sub-section (l) shall be
made within the time and in the manner prescribed and shall be
accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed for the service of
the notice referred to in sub-section (5).
H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A (3) xxxxxxx

(4) If any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid,
the Court, the District Judge or the High Court, as the case may be,
shall unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop
all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to
B
put the landlord in possession of the premises or dismiss the appeal
or revision petition, as the case may be.

(5) x x x x x x x"

C Sub-Section (2) of Section 29 provides that the deposit of the rent
under sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner
prescribed, which means that the deposit of rent must be made in the manner
prescribed and within the time provided by the Rules. Section 50 which
provides for a revision to the High Court or the District Judge is as follows
D
"50. Revision. (1) The High Court may, at any time callfor
and examine any order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of
Small Causes or the Court of Civil Judge under this Act or any order
passed by the Controller under Sections 14, 15, 16 or 17 for the
"'-E purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness of such
order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto
as it thinks fit.

(2) The District Judge may, at any time call for and examine
F any order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of Munsiff
referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (d) of Section 3 for the
purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or correctness of
such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference
thereto as he thinks fit. The order of the District Judge shall be final.

G (3) The costs of and incidental to all proceedings before the
High Court or the District Judge shall be in the discretion of the
High Court or the District Judge, as the case may be."

Rule 9 is the relevant Rule which prescribes. the manner and time
H within which the deposit as contemplated by Section 29 shall be made. The
K. RAGHUNATH v. CHANDRASEKHAR 595

relevant Rule is quoted below :- A

"Rule 9. Deposit of rent under Section 29.- (l) The time within
which a deposit of rent under sub-section (1) of Section 29, may
be made shall be fifteen days of the last date fixed in the agreement
of tenancy with the landlord for payment of the rent or in the B
absence of such agreement fifteen days from the last date of the
month next following that for which the rent is payable."

It will thus be seen that Section 50 which provides for a revision to
the High Court against the order of the Court of Small Causes, as in this
case, does not prescribe a limitation for preferring the revision. In fact the C
power has been conferred upon the High Court and the District Judge to act
suo motu, but it is not disputed before us that the aggrieved party also may
invoke that provision and seek relief.

Counsel for the parties submitted before us that in the absence of a D
provision providing for a limitation the High Court of Karnataka has held
that such a revision must be preferred within 90 days. It was so laid down
in the case of P. Kannaswamy v. B.L. Shankaranarayana Shetty, AIR ( 1977)
Karnataka 72. A subsequent decision of the same Court in Obalappa v.
Alamelamma, AIR (1983) 1 Rent Control Reporter 258 has clarified that the
period of 90 days though not a period of limitation prescribed by law, is E
all the same a guidance for the exercise of discretion in such matters.
Without going into the correctness of these decisions we proceed on the
basis that a revision could be preferred within 90 days, though Section 50
does not lay down the limitation for preferring such a revision.

F
In view of the above if a revision is filed within 90 days as laid down
by the aforesaid decisions of the Karnataka High Court, and the arrears of
rent is not deposited within the period of 90 days, the situation poses no
difficulty, because in that event the Court may dismiss the revision unless
the revisionist is able to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for
not making the deposit within such time. In the instant case we are faced G
with a different situation. The revision was preferred against the order of
the Small Causes Court dated 4th Febru<1.ry, 2000 on 6th April, 2000. The
revision petition, therefore, was filed within time. The arrears of rent were
paid on 11th April, 2000. Therefore, by the time the revision came up for
hearing before the High Court on 13th April, 2000, the arrears of rent had H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A already been paid within the period allowed for preferring the revision
petition. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the revision petition
should haYe been entertained on merit and the High Court should not have
dismissed it on the ground of limitation. The Court should have treated the
Revision as duly presented on April 6, 2000, the date on which the payment
B was made.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that Rule 29 prescribes the
period within which the deposit should be made. We have examined Rule
29 to ascertain within what period, according to the Rule, the deposit or
payment of the arrears of rent should have been made. Unfortunately, the
c Rule is not happily worded. In our view it has net prescribed a time limit
for deposit of rent in a revisional proceeding under Section 50 even though
Section 29 directly refers to such a proceeding. This may perhaps be on
account of the fact that the Act itself does not prescribe a limitation for
invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 50. However, if it were
D permissible to compute the limitation under Rule 9, in view of the fact that
we do not know the last date contemplated in the agreement of tenancy for
payment of rent, we may compute the limitation on the basis of time
prescribed in the last part of sub-section (1) namely "15 days from the last
date of the month next fo_llowing that for which the rent is payable".

E In the instant case the order of eviction was passed on 4th February,
2000. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we take it that rent for
the month of February was due and payable. The month next following that
for which the rent is payable will be the month of March, 2000, and 15 days
from the last day of March would be the 15th April, 2000. Even if we so
.p compute the limitation period allowed for depositing the arrears of rent, the
payment made on 1 lth April, 2000 was well within time. We are, therefore,
of the view that there was in fact no delay in paying the arrears of rent
reading Section 29 of the Act with Rule 9 of the Rules. Even otherwise in
principle we are supported in our conclusion by the decision of this Court
in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Mis Filmistan Ltd., [1961]
G 3 SCR 893. That was a case under the Income Tax Act and the question
arose in the context of Section 30 of the Act which provided for appeals
against orders of assessment. The proviso as contained in Section 30( 1) read
as follows :-

H "Provided that no appeal shall lie against an order under sub-
'I'
1
/
-j
K. RAGHUNATH v. CHANDRASEKHAR 597
...,
section (I) of section 46 unless the tax has been paid." A

The objection by the department was that the appeal was barred by
limitation since the tax had not been paid when the appeal was preferred.
Negativing this contention this Court held :'
B
"The controversy between the parties revolves round the words
"no appeal shall lie." The contention which was raised before us
was that these words mean that there is no right of appeal till the
tax is paid and therefore if the tax has not been paid the memorandum
of appeal cannot be filed and if filed it is merely a waste paper. In
our opinion the meaning of the words "no appeal shall lie" in the c
proviso is not that no memorandum of appeal can be presented. All
that it means is that the appeal will not be held to be properly filed
until the tax has been paid. If, for instance, the memorandum of
appeal is filed on the 20th day, i.e., I 0 days before the period of
limitation expires and the tax is paid within the rest of the IO days, D
the appeal will be a proper appeal; it will be within time and no
question oflimitation will arise but ifthe tax is paid after the period
of limitation has expired it will be taken to have been filed on the
day when the tax is paid even though the memorandum of appeal
was presented earlier and within the period of limitation. The
question will then have to be decided whether there was sufficient E
cause for condonation of delay and that is exactly what the Tribunal
had ordered and that in our opinion is the effect of the proviso to
Section 30(1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act."

F
We therefore, allow the appeal and remit the matter to the High Court
l'f:
for disposal of the revision petition on merit. Since the need of the landlords
as claimed by them is urgent as they require the premises for their bona fide
personal need, we request the High Court to dispose of the revision petition
as early as possible. It was also brought to our notice that during the
pendency of the appeal before this Court no rent has been deposited. G
Unfortunately, neither the appellant voluntarily deposited the rent each
month as and when it fell due, nor did the respondents seek a direction from
this Court to the appellant to deposit the rent each month. However, we
direct the appellant. to deposit the arrears of rent due as on 30th November,
2004 within a period of four weeks from today. H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] .SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A The parties are at liberty to move the High Court and seek further
directions for the deposit of rent in future. If the rent as directed by us is
not deposited within the period of four weeks from today, it will be open
to the High Court to dismiss the revision petition on that ground alone. The ~-
parties are directed to appear before the Registrar General of the Karnataka
B High Court on 17th January, 2005 when he shall intimate the parties the
probable date of hearing.

This appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.