K. RAGHUNATH versus CHANDRASEKHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 01-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH, ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
K. RAGHUNATH 
V. 
CHANDRASEKHAR AND ANR. 
DECEMBER I, 2004 
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 : Section 22(1), (h) & (p). 
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 
E 
on the basis that a revision petition could be preferred within 90 days, 
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. 
G 
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 
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. 
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 
c 
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 
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. 
G 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.