Case Note & Summary
The case involves a revision petition filed by the tenants (petitioners) against the order dated 17.07.2013 in R.R.No.11/2013 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, which dismissed their revision against the order dated 01.02.2013 on I.A.No.VI in R.C.A.No.29/2009 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Hubli. The respondent, N.A. Anantaram, claimed to be the owner of the property and had filed an eviction petition against the petitioners. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the petitioners filed an application under Section 43(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking to deposit the rent. The trial court dismissed the application, and the appellate court upheld that dismissal. The petitioners then approached the High Court under Section 115 of CPC, challenging the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below, as the petitioners had failed to make out a case for deposit of rent under the Act. The revision petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Deposit of Rent - Section 43(1) and (2) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - The petitioner, a tenant, filed an application seeking to deposit rent under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which was dismissed by both the trial court and the appellate court. The High Court, in revision, upheld the concurrent findings, holding that the tenant had failed to establish the grounds for deposit and that the courts below had exercised their discretion properly. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the application filed under Section 43(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, and whether the concurrent findings warrant interference in revision under Section 115 of CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioners had failed to establish grounds for deposit of rent under Section 43(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Law Points
- Section 43(1) and (2) of Karnataka Rent Act
- 1999
- deposit of rent
- concurrent findings
- revision under Section 115 CPC
- scope of revision
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (02) 12
V M Sheelvant (for petitioners), G Meera Bai (for respondent)
Smt. Vinatha Madhukar Haldipur, Goutam S/o Madhukar Haldipur, Gourang S/o Madhukar Haldipur, Gourish S/o Madhukar Haldipur
N.A. Anantaram S/o N.A.V. Naidu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition against concurrent orders dismissing application under Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 for deposit of rent.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 17.07.2013 in R.R.No.11/2013 and the order dated 01.02.2013 on I.A.No.VI in R.C.A.No.29/2009, and to allow the application for deposit of rent.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, as tenants, filed an application under Section 43(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking to deposit rent, which was dismissed by the trial court and appellate court.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (I Addl. Civil Judge, Hubli) dismissed I.A.No.VI on 01.02.2013. The appellate court (I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad) dismissed the revision R.R.No.11/2013 on 17.07.2013.
Issues
Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the application under Section 43(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below warrant interference under Section 115 of CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were entitled to deposit rent under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Respondent opposed the application, contending that the petitioners had not made out a case for deposit.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of the courts below on an application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, are not to be interfered with in revision under Section 115 of CPC unless there is a patent illegality or perversity. The tenant failed to establish the grounds for deposit of rent.
Judgment Excerpts
The respondent in RCA No.29/2009, pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge, Hubballi, has come up in this revision impugning the concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below on an application filed by him in I.A.No.6 under section 43(1) and (2) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, in the said proceedings.
The brief facts leading to this HRRP are that the petition for eviction in RCA No.29/2009 is by the respondent herein claiming himself to be the owner of property bearing...
Procedural History
The respondent filed an eviction petition (RCA No.29/2009) against the petitioners. During pendency, petitioners filed I.A.No.6 under Section 43(1) and (2) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which was dismissed by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Hubli on 01.02.2013. Petitioners filed revision R.R.No.11/2013 before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, which was dismissed on 17.07.2013. Petitioners then filed the present HRRP No.521/2013 under Section 115 of CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Rent Act, 1999: 43(1), 43(2)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): 115
