1. This matter is placed before this Division Bench by the special orders passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, at a request of the learned Single Judge, for a reference to resolve conflict in the views expressed in several judgments regarding the word ‘plinth area’ used in Section 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Act’).

2. For the purposes of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the eviction petition – HRC No. 177/2007.

3. The subject matter of these proceedings is a shop premises bearing No. 24/24 situated at 17th cross, 20th main, M. C. Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore measuring 7 ¼ x 10 ½ feet along with a portion measuring about 5” X 8”, boundary on the north by 20th Main Road and east by 17th cross road, west by property of Veena Prakash and South by site bearing No. 23. (The said premises is hereinafter referred to as the ‘schedule property’).

4. The petitioner in the eviction petition is the owner of the schedule property. The 1st respondent – M. C. Krishnappa took schedule premises under lease agreement dated 01.08.1997 on a monthly rent of Rs.1.250/- for running a wine store. The petitioner initiated eviction proceedings under Section 27(2)(B)(II)(C) and (R) of the Act for eviction of the 1st respondent – M. C. Krishnappa and the 2nd respondent Sri. M. L. Shivakumar who is said to be the sub-tenant.

5. After service of notice, respondents entered appearance and filed a detailed statement of objections. They contended that, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under the Act is not maintainable in view of Section 2(3)(g) of the Act which exempts the application of the Rent Act to commercial premises, the plinth area of which is more than 14 sq.metres. Subsequently, the respondents also filed an application for considering the maintainability of the application as a preliminary point, which application was numbered as IA No. 6.

6. The learned Small CausesJudge recorded the evidence of the parties and also took note of the measurements given in the lease deed and came to the conclusion that the plinth area which is the subject matter of lease is 116.13 sq.meters though in the lease deed it is mentioned as 2 squares, as the actual measurement according to her is not 2 squares and only 116.13 square feet. She was of the view that the schedule premises measures less than 14 sq.metres and therefore, she held, eviction petition is maintainable, by rejecting the application filed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, respondents preferred this revision petition.

7. Before this court, by consent of parties, a retired Civil Engineer was appointed as Court Commissioner. He has given his report along with the sketch showing the measurements of the schedule property. He has stated that the carpet area of the petition premises is 12.037 sq.mts. whereas, the plinth area is 15.34 mtrs. So, if the carpet area is taken into consideration, it is less than 14 sq.mtrs, whereas if the plinth area is taken, it would be more than 14 sq.mtrs.

8. It is in this background, it was contended before the learned Single Judge, in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in P. R. Radhakrishna Setty and Sons Company vs. A. N. Satish Babu reported in 2004 (2) KLJ 223, it is the area used for commercial purpose which shall be taken into consideration while interpreting the Section. While doing so, the walls cannot be used and as such their measurements need not be taken. In other words, it is the carpet area which has to be taken into consideration.

9. Another learned Single Judge of this court in the case Smt.P.Vatsala Upadhya & Ors. Vs. Srikanth Keshav Raikar, reported in ILR 2004 Kar. 1637 has held that the plinth area includes essentially all appurtenance that form part of the premises which are let along with the building including the frontage of the shop which forms part of the premises.

10. Later, one more learned Single Judge