p IN TIJi HIGH COURT iF KARNAPKA AT A AL IflTED TH 29TH DIY OF MAY 1998 B LFOR1: TH HON’BL MR.JUSPIUE Il.RANGAVTTTALACHAR TlJ,jLO5j4 Sri V,tT,Umashankar, s/n Sri V,AUmapathi, maj or, No 4 2349, 20th Lross, 2 anashankarj TI stage, IJangalore7’\ Petit loner (By r1 ft.I3dashiv1ppa) —vs ri J,G,Photadappa, s/n Sri Gurus iddappa, major, r/o Jadigenaballi, Hosakote T aluk, Bangalore District, Respondent (Dy Sri C,Y,Nagesb for caveator/respondent) 4* #4 This revision petit ion is filed under ection 50 (1) of the Karnataka tent Control act, against the order dated 18.2,94 passed in HRC No.2679/89 on the file of the Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, This revision petition coming on for hearing this day the court made the following: RDRR 2— 4)Ri)ER Iiring an enquiry of an eviction petition filed by the respondent, the landlord also made an application under octjon 29 (1) jf the Karnataka Rent “ontrol Act (for short ‘the Acte) contendfn that the tenant has filed to pay the rents from 1,4,1986 till the date of the applicatia, This applicatinu was enquired into by the trial court by an order on I,A,l an it passed an order determining the arrears of rent the pet 4 tioner was liable to pay at I dJj 3 Rs,41,700/ithin 30 days from the date of the order, Since the tenant did not comply with the order, the landlord made an application under ectlon 29 (4) of the ct praying the court to stop further proceedings and pa an order f eviction 4 t has to be stated that though th petitioner was served with the copy of t1 application be has not filed any reply, There fore the crt held that in spite >f the directions issued in I,A, I, tue tenant bad felled to pay the entire arrears of rent nor has shtn any cause for nonpayment of rent, Therefore the court passed an order under Section 29 (4) of the Act stopping the mrther proceedings and directing the petitioner to quit and delIver vacant p;ssessln, This rder Is under cbal enge, e3e Sri R• B. dadashivappa, lear ned counsel appear lug for the pet it loner contended that on 17.6.93 he made an application !.A.TT!!, requesting the court to extend the time far 16 deposit by another 3 months as he intends eyã.* %eA to challenge the 4 l,Aj before the High C art, therein he has explained the reasons why he has not deposited the arrears of rent, *“1f the court belsw has not considered this aspect of the matter. Therefore the - order of the eon rt below suffers tom an error of ree.rçlm the absence of other mater ial on record it can be said that that could be construed as showing some ease but unfortunately for the tenant under Section fl (4) he has not chosen to give any explanation for not depositing the arrears of rent. the tenant persisted in stating that he had paid the rents in ercessbut it was not supported by any material; Under the cirmamstances, the court was justified in holding that the tenant had not shown aiy sufficient cause, therefore the order of the court below cannot he faulted, there is no merit in the petition, The petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly diaissed, 4 ‘-4— a At this stage the learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the tenant’s wife has suffered heavy loss in the business and is in atre.e diffisalt condition. With great diffiasity he was able to pay the entire arrears of rent. As on today he is not due it arrears of rent. Under the cireumstasues he prayed for 3 years time te quit and deliver vacant possessioe of the premises. The Learned counsel for the landlord did not seriously oppose for grant of time. Under the circumstances the tenant is granted 3 years time to vacate the praises abject t’ the follow *1 conditions: 1. T hat he shell file am affidavit uedert*ing to voluntarily vaeate tie premises. 2. he affidavit shau be filed within 4 weeks free today after serving a copy of the sae em the other side. 3. That he shall pay the monthly rents regularly as and when it falls due withrnt defailt. 4. ?hat he shall not sub—let or sub—lease the premises. Sd/ JUDGE Ta