Kumar, J.

This is the defendant’s second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the plinth area of the schedule property is more than 14 Sq.Meters and therefore, the Karnataka Rent Act; 1999 is not applicable and hence, the defendant is liable to be ejected from the schedule property.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

3. The subject matter of the suit is a shop premises bearing No.6 comprised in Sathyaprakash building/complex bearing K.Ho.4488 and A.R.No.5693, situated at Bus stand road, Hassan City.

4. The plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property. The defendant is a tenant of the schedule premises. A lease deed came to lie entered into between the parties on 1.6.1987. The rent was fixed at Rs.600/-. It was a monthly tenancy. The plaintiff filed HRC No.3 7/1989 under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the defendant. In view of Section 31 of the Old Act being restored by virtue of pronouncement of the Supreme Court, he withdrew the said eviction petition. The plaintiff got issued” a legal notice dated 11.9.2000 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy. As the defendant did not vacate the premises, he has filed the present suit” for ejectment on 16.10.2000.

5. The defendant contested the claim. He contended that he is tenant since 1975 by virtue of a lease deed dated 20.12.1975 on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- and the duration of lease was five years and therefore, he is not tenant from 1.6.1987 as contended. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs.600/-. As .the schedule premises leased is less than 14 Sq.Meters, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is attracted and the suit filed is not maintainable.

6. The trial Court framed as many as five issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-l and examined a witness as PW..2 and produced 12 documents which are marked as Exs.Pl to P12. The Defendant examined himself as DW-land examined a witness as DW-2 and produced one document, which is marked as EX.Dl.

7. At the instance of the parties, the Court appointed a Commissioner who has submitted his report, a sketch and a mahazar which are marked as Exs.Cl to C3. Both the parties have not filed any objections to the Commissioner’s report and the measurement given by the Commissioner in his report is accepted.

8. The trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record and also the Commissioner’s report held that the plinth area of the schedule premises is more than 14 Sq. Meters. Therefore, Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is not attracted. As the tenancy of the defendant is duly terminated, the defendant has no right to continue in possession and therefore, it passed a decree for ejectment. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred a regular appeal. The lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of entire evidence on record and after formulating the points for consideration has agreed with findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by these two concurrent findings, the defendant is in second appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below urged only one ground, i.e., though the plinth area of the schedule premises is in excess of 14 Sq. Meters, the carpet area of the schedule premises is less than 14 Sq. Meters and therefore, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is attracted and the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in P. R. Radhakrishna Setty and Sons Co. Vs. Satish Babu, where it is has been held as under:

“What is important is “plinth area used for commercial purpose”. The word “used” assumes importance. Therefore, only the area used for commercial purpose shall be taken into consideration. In such event, walls cannot be used and as such, their