SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J.
Sri Ganesh N., S/o Late Nataraj – Appellant
Versus
Mr. N. Ananthan Pillai, S/o Late Narayana Pillai – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 235 of 2023 (IO)
Decided on : 16-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI S. VENUGOPALA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI VENKATESH R. BHAGAT,

Point of Law: Section 2(3)(g) of Act is clear that if premises exceeds 14 sq.mts., Act is not applicable.

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11, Section 151 - Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Sections 2(3)(e)(i) and (3)(g) - Commercial premises - Vacate and deliver possession - Petition challenging order - Suit seeking an order to direct defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession – If premises is measuring more than 14 sq.mts., Rent Act is not applicable - Para 14.

Finding of the Court: Area is less than 14 sq.mts. and there is no dispute with regard to fact - When such being case, Section 2(3)(g) of Act is clear that if premises exceeds 14 sq.mts., Act is not applicable - If it is less than 14 sq.mts., even if it is a non-residential premises used for commercial purpose, Act is made applicable to a nonresidential premises used for commercial purpose having plinth area of less than 14 sq.mts - Court in its judgment passed in CRP held that if rate of rent is more than Rs.3,500/-per month, it will fall under Transfer of Property Act - Court in its order passed in R.S.A. held that if rate of rent is more than Rs.2,000/-per month in respect of a commercial premises, Rent Act is not applicable and Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is applicable since premises comes within purview of Part B of First Schedule of Act - Trial Court committed an error in not considering very proviso of Sections 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of Act and order passed by Trial Court is against statute and hence it requires interference of Court - Order of Trial Court passed on I.A. is set aside.

Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in S.C.No.15125/2022, on the file of the XVII ASCJ, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner/defendant No.3 in S.C.No.15125/2022 is that the petitioner herein is a tenant along with respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein. It is contended that the husband of defendant No.1 and the father of defendant Nos.2 to 5 Sri late A. Nataraj was a tenant under the plaintiff on oral agreement in respect of ground floor shop premises measuring 7 x 11 ft. which is morefully described in the schedule. The said Nataraj was paying the rent of Rs.3,000/-per month to the plaintiff and he was running a business under the name and style M/s. Shakthi Polishing Machines. He expired in the year 2020 and thereafter the defendants continued to pay the rent of Rs.3,000/-per month and thereafter the defendants stopped the payment. The defendants are jointly running a business in the schedule premises. The petition schedule premises is required by the plaintiff for his bonafide use and occupation and requested the defendants to handover the vacant possession many times, but they did not come forward to vacate the premises and hence issued a legal notice to quit, vacate and handover the possession and they have given an untenable reply and hence filed a suit seeking an order to direct the defendants to vacate and deliver the vacant possession and also direct the defendants to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.60,000/-from November 2020 to June 2022 and grant such other relief.

3. The defendant No.3 filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. However, he contend that the defendants’ father took the premises on free of rent on receipt of lease amount of Rs.5 lakhs in the year 1993 and the father was required only to paid the electricity charges as and when due. The plaintiff was to refund the lease amount to Sri Nataraj at the time of vacating the premises and denied the contention that they are in occupation of the premises on monthly rent basis. The defendants have also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC praying this Court to dismiss the suit as not maintainable in view of Sections 2(3)(e)(i) and 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (‘the Act’ for short). In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to wherein it is contended that the rate of rent is Rs.3,000/-per month and the plinth area is 77 sq.ft. and hence the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the same is coming under the jurisdiction of the Act and prayed this Court to dismiss the same.

4. The plaintiff filed the statement of objections contending that the application is highly misconceived, frivolous and vexatious with an ulterior malafide motive and the same is not maintainable and the application is filed only to protract the proceedings in the case. The plaintiff denied all the averments made in the application and contend that the defendants are not entitled for any relief as prayed in the application.

5. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the application and also the statement of objections and while giving reasons, extracted the provision of Sections 2(3)(e)(i) and 2(3)(g) of the Act and comes to the conclusion that the premises is measuring 77 sq.ft. and rate of rent is Rs.3,000/-per month and that the defendants have not made out any ground to allow the application and rejected the application. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court by defendant No.3.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Trial Court misguided itself and exercises its jurisdiction erroneously in rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The Trial Court failed to consider the averments made in the plaint that admitted rate of rent is Rs.3,000/-per month

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top