The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of S. 2(3)(e) and (g) of the Karnataka Rent Act to determine the Act's applicability to the premises in question.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 29/11/2022 passed in R.A.No.12/2022 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the appellant herein is a tenant in respect of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.2, 500.00 and suit schedule premises is a commercial premises measuring 110 sq. feet situated at n ward No.11, I.G.Road Cross, (Christian colony road), opposite Mathias tower, Chikkamagaluu bearing municipal Assessment No.5015/3418 and the plaintiff has issued the notice against the defendant and inspite of service of notice, he did not vacate the premises hence, filed a suit for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit property has been leased out for a monthly rent basis to him. The period of rent was 11 months starting from 1/1/2015 to 30/11/2015 as per the agreement and he has been in possession of the premises. As per the terms and conditions of the rent agreement, the defendant had agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.2, 500.00 and he has paid the advance amount of Rs.20, 000.00 and denied the contention that the plaintiff has demanded the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises. The lease agreement in question provides an option to the parties to extend the lease for a period more than eleven months and in case, the lease is extended for a term of more than three years, the monthly rent of the premises has to be increased by 10%. As such continuation of the defendant in the schedule premises as a tenant is in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The defendant also admitted the issuance of legal notice dtd. 8/12/2017 and he has given the reply and he is paying the rent regularly and also contend that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable since the measurement of the suit shop premises is 10 x 12 feet. If the measurement of the property is less than 1000 sq. feet, the plaintiff has to file HRC petition, whereas, the plaintiff has filed the present suit which is not maintainable.

5. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P4. The defendant has not led and evidence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issue Nos.1 too 3 as affirmative and additional Issue as negative wherein a specific contention was taken that the suit is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant wherein also similar grounds are urged contending that the original suit is not maintainable and ought to have filed eviction petition and the First Appellate Court also considering the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the point with regard to whether the defendant/appellant made out the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff/respondent and defendant/appellant is governed by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and suit is not maintainable and whether the Trial Court fails to provide an opportunity to lead defence evidence as contended in the appeal memo and also formulated the point with regard that the Trial Court has not appreciated the both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the First Appellate Court also on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered all the points as negative and before dismissing the appeal, Ss. 2(3)(e) and (g) has been extracted by the First Appellate Court and also taken note of the decision reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4696 in a case of SMT. ANUPAMA RAMESH vs SHRI VEERCHAND and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present a