Constitutional remedy and rent-control deposit conditions: undertaking could not bar Article 136, but revision failed without arrears deposit.

An undertaking given before the High Court to obtain time to vacate did not bar invocation of Article 136, because estoppel, election, and approbate-reprobate principles cannot defeat a constitutional remedy; the undertaking could affect interim relief, but not appellate maintainability. A revision petition under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was, however, incompetent because Section 29 required deposit of all arrears of rent as a condition precedent at the time of filing, and later payment did not cure the defect on these facts. The document therefore distinguishes between waiver-like conduct that cannot exclude Supreme Court jurisdiction and a mandatory statutory deposit requirement that governs maintainability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an undertaking furnished before the High Court, while obtaining time to vacate, precluded the tenant from invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether a revision petition under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was maintainable without deposit of arrears of rent as required by Section 29 of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether an undertaking furnished before the High Court, while obtaining time to vacate, precluded the tenant from invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The doctrine of election and the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate are rooted in estoppel, but they cannot be used to defeat a constitutional remedy. An undertaking given to secure temporary protection from eviction does not amount to waiver of the right to challenge the order before the Supreme Court, and compliance with the undertaking does not signify abandonment of statutory or constitutional remedies. The existence of an undertaking may be relevant to interim relief, but it cannot bar access to appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The undertaking did not render the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India non-maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a revision petition under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was maintainable without deposit of arrears of rent as required by Section 29 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 makes payment or deposit of all arrears of rent a condition precedent for preferring or prosecuting a revision petition under Section 50. The provision operates at the threshold when the revision is filed, and the requirement is distinct from the later obligation to continue depositing rent during the pendency of proceedings. In the absence of deposit at the time of filing, the revision was not maintainable, and a later attempt to treat subsequent payment as curing the defect was not entertained on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The revision petition was incompetent for non-compliance with Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the tenant could not resist the maintainability objection based on the undertaking, and the underlying revision was defective for want of the mandatory deposit of rent.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional or statutory right of appeal cannot be defeated by estoppel arising from an undertaking given to obtain temporary relief, but a rent-control revision remains subject to a statutory condition precedent requiring deposit of arrears of rent at the time of filing.

---