9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Maintainability of appeal u/s 136 of the Constitution after giving undertaking before High Court. 2. Requirement of deposit of arrears of rent for filing revision petition u/s 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Issue 1: Maintainability of appeal u/s 136 of the Constitution after giving undertaking before High Court: The appeal was against the High Court's order dismissing a revision petition under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The appellant-tenant had given an undertaking to vacate the premises within six months as directed by the High Court. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the tenant cannot approach the Supreme Court u/s 136 of the Constitution after giving the undertaking. This objection was based on the principle that by giving the undertaking, the tenant elected to avail protection from eviction and enjoyed that protection until the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court cited previous decisions where it was held that once an undertaking is given in the High Court and time is taken based on that undertaking, it would not be proper to interfere with the High Court's finding. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of election cannot preclude a person from invoking the constitutional remedy provided u/s 136 of the Constitution. Issue 2: Requirement of deposit of arrears of rent for filing revision petition u/s 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961: The High Court dismissed the revision petition as it was not accompanied by the deposit of arrears of rent, which was a condition for preferring a revision under the Act. Section 29 of the Act mandates that a tenant cannot contest an eviction application or prefer a revision petition without paying or depositing all arrears of rent due. The tenant's argument that the liability under Section 29(1) arises only after the court determines the amount to be paid was rejected. The Court noted that the tenant did not deposit the rent when filing the revision petition, and subsequently paying rent arrears did not change this fact. The tenant's failure to raise this issue earlier in the proceedings led to the dismissal of the appeal. This judgment clarifies the importance of complying with statutory requirements, such as depositing arrears of rent before filing a revision petition, and upholds the right to appeal to the Supreme Court u/s 136 of the Constitution despite giving an undertaking before the High Court.
|
