1. This is a tenant’s revision petition against eviction order made under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

2. I have heard Sri S. Siddappa, learned counsel for petitioner (tenant) and Sri Vigneshwara, learned counsel for respondent (Landlady).

3. The schedule premises is a shop premises measuring East to West 8 Feet and North to South 18 feet situate at 6th Main Road, RPC Layout, Railway L.N. Pipeline Chord Road, Bangalore.

4. Sri. Siddappa, learned counsel for petitioner has made following submissions:

I. The area of schedule shop is more than 14 sq. mts., therefore, the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, are not applicable.

II. The Landlady has failed to prove that schedule premises is required for her occupation and non-availability of suitable premises.

III. The petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, is not supported by an affidavit, therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

IV. The learned trial judge has ignored the evidence on record, in particular, the crucial admissions made by the Landlady regarding availability of suitable premises.

5. Sri Vigneshwara, learned counsel for respondent (Landlady) would submit that the plinth area of schedule premises is less than 14 sq. mts., therefore, the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 are applicable. The mere fact that other shops have come into possession of Landlady, that by itself cannot be said that the said premises is available and can be termed as alternate suitable premises and it is not open for tenant to dictate landlord how he should carry on business or where he should carry on the business.

6. The learned counsel for petitioner (tenant) has relied on following judgments:—

1. Smt. P. Vatsala Upadhya and Others v Srikanth Keshav Raikar (ILR 2004 Kar. 1637)

2. Somanathasa baddi v Chanabasappa and others ((2008) 10 SCC 685)

7. The learned counsel for respondent (Landlady) has relied on following judgments:—

1. M. Javerilal v N. Achalraj Jain (2005 (1) Kar.L.J. 76 : ILR 2005 Kar. 155)

2. Uday Shankar Upadhyay and Others v Naveen Maheswari ((2010) 1 SCC 503 : 2010 AIR SCW 1265)

8. Before adverting to submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it is necessary to state certain facts, which are not in dispute. The schedule premises is a shop used for non-residential purpose. The relationship between the parties as Landlord and tenant is not in dispute, so also rate of rent.

9. The petitioner/tenant has not raised the question of maintainability before the trial court. The Lease Deed marked as per Ex.P2 reveals that the schedule shop measures 18’ x 8’ = 144 Sq.ft. Therefore, the contention of petitioner/tenant that provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 are not applicable cannot be accepted. Incidentally it is necessary to state that during pendency of this revision petition, a Commissioner was appointed to inspect and measure the suit schedule property and submit a report. As per report submitted by the Commissioner, the plinth area of schedule shop is less than 144 sq. mts. It is noticed from report of the Commissioner that during spot inspection, the tenant insisted that the Commissioner should also take measurements of sajjas. The learned counsel for petitioner relying on the report of Commissioner would submit if the area of sajja is included, the area of schedule premises would be more than 14 sq. mts.

10. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of this court reported in the case of Smt. P. Vatsala Upadhya, wherein, this court has held:

“For the purpose of calculation of area of commercial premises, the frontage of the shop or plinth area as the case may be taken into consideration. The frontage of the shop certainly forms part of the shop premises and it is an appurtenant of the shop premises. Without the use of such appurtenant, the purpose and object for which the tenant has taken the shop on lease cannot be realised.”

11. In a decision reported in the case of P.R. Radha