Point of Law: If area of a premises used for commercial purpose is more than fourteen square meters, it stands excluded from applicability of Rent Act in view of Clause (g).

ORDER :

This petition is listed to Admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.03.2022 passed in S.C.No.1596/2019 by the Trial Court in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is rejected.

3. The counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contend that the Court below has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable and HRC Act ought to have been invoked and the very conclusion arrived by the Trial Court is erroneous. The counsel would vehemently contend that Section 2(3)(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Rent Act’) is clear that what are the subject matters are excluded under the Rent Act. The counsel for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court to Section 2(3)(e) of the Rent Act and contend that when Section 2(3)(e) is very specific that standard rent is exceeds Rs.3,500/-, the landlord cannot file any petition under the Rent Act. The counsel would vehemently contend that rate of rent is Rs.4,500/-per month. Hence, as per Section 2(3)(e) of the Rent Act, if the rent is payable more than Rs.3,500/-, the Rent Act is not applicable. Hence, the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application. Hence, it requires interference.

4. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4696 in the case of SMT. ANUPAMA RAMESH vs SHRI VEERCHAND and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 7 wherein this Court held the exception provided in some of the Clauses in sub-Section (3) will come into play, if the premises is not excluded from the applicability of the Rent Act under any of the other clauses. It is further observed that this exception clause cannot be defeated on the ground that its rent is less than the amount stipulated in Clause (e). To give one more instance, if a premises is excluded from the applicability of the Rent Act under Clause (e), it can’t be defeated by relying on the exception provided in Clause (g) on the ground that the premises is used for commercial purpose and its plinth area does not exceed fourteen square meters. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that under Section 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act, exception provided can’t defeat the right of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that when Section 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act is very clear with regard to excluding the premises which is less than 14 square meters and HRC Act is applicable and not Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘T.P. Act’). Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error and the Trial Court having considering both the provisions i.e., Section 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act and also relying upon the judgments reported in ILR 2005 KAR 2753 and 2011(3) KAR 657 (DB) rightly comes to the conclusion that HRC Act is applicable and not the proceedings under Section 106 of T.P. Act. The counsel also relied upon the very same judgments and brought to notice of this Court that the discussions made in both the judgments with regard to Section 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court wherein also discussed with regard to Section 2 (3)(g) of the Rent Act where it is also held that the Rent Act is applicable if the premises measuring less than 14 square meters.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also in keeping the principles laid down in the judgments referred by the respective counsel, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court that:

Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and whether the said order suffers from legal