The main legal point established is that Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 applies to any order passed in proceedings under Section 27, including orders under Section 43, and imposes an obligation on a tenant to deposit arrears of rent to contest eviction proceedings.

N. Kumar, J.

This House Rent Revision Petition is placed before this Division Bench by virtue of the order of reference passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 17.3.2015. The learned Single Judge, who sought the reference, has framed the following two questions.

(1) In view of decision in Smt. Lakshmamma and others v. B.P. Thirumala Setty & others, ILR 2005 KAR 5599 is the decision in the case of Sri. Saleem v. Sri. Syed Yousuff and others, 2009 (5) KCCR 3746, a good law?

(2) As provision of Section 43 is an independent provision requiring the Court dealing with petitions under provisions of Rent Act to refer the question regarding jural relationship between parties to have their rights adjudicated by a competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, will not Section 45 to be inapplicable in view of the phrase operating under Section 45 against any order passed but on an application under Section 27 of the Act?

2. In order to answer the aforesaid questions, it is necessary to know the factual background and for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred in the original proceedings.

3. The petitioner Smt. Jayalakshmi filed HRC No. 299/2008 invoking provisions of Section 31(a) & (c) read with Section 27(2)(a)(b) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking eviction of the respondent Sri. C.S.Seshagiri from the schedule premises, of which she is the owner. The respondent was a tenant of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. On the ground that he did not pay the rents from 01.03.1981 to 31.12.2007 i.e., for 322 months amounting to Rs.32,200/- in spite of repeated requests and demand, a legal notice came to be issued calling upon him to pay the said amount. When the rents were not paid, he became liable for eviction under Clause (a) of Section 27(2) of the Act. In fact, the petitioner had preferred an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a)and (b) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, which came to be repealed. In the said proceedings, the respondent contended that he was not a tenant but was in possession of the schedule property in part performance of agreement of sale dated 14.05.1979. Relying on such a plea, the earlier eviction proceeding was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed O.S.No.3507/1987 for enforcement of the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 14.05.1979 and it was decreed after contest. The petitioner preferred RFA No. 891 2004 against the said judgment and decree before this Court. This Court by judgment and decree dated 18.09.2006, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit for specific performance. However, this Court directed refund of Rs.27,000/- to the respondent with interest @ 6% p.a. After the said decree in RFA No. 89/2004, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was revived and the petitioner deposited Rs.27,000/- in terms of the decree of the Appellate Court, which the respondent was entitled to withdraw.

4. As the petitioner was a senior citizen, aged about 80 years and after expiry of her husband on 19.9.1990, she was in need of the premises for her own use and occupation, she invoked the beneficial provision of Section 31 (a) and (c) of the Act to get immediate possession. She also invoked the provision of Section 27(2)(r) of the Act.

5. The respondent resisted the eviction petition. He denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. He contended that the suit filed by him was decreed. He is in possession of schedule premises in terms of agreement of sale, which falls within the ambit of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, he contended that he is not in possession as a lessee but as a person in possession of part performance of agreement of sale. He also contended in order to decide the question of jural relationship, the case has to be referred to the Civil Court. In fact, during the pendency of the proceedings,