ORDER

The petitioners' grandfather, Sri Raghavendra Rao, leased out the premises bearing door numbers 10-1-158A, 10-1-158B, and 10-1-58C situated in Tenkapete, Udupi Town. The subject premises were bequeathed to the petitioners. During his lifetime, the father of the petitioners filed a petition under Section 27(2)(a)(b)(c)(r) and 31(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (referred to as 'the Act 1999'), seeking to vacate and gain vacant possession of the premises, stating that they are required for carrying on the business of printing/publishing and a stationery mart.

2. The respondents, tenants, entered appearance and contended that the provisions of the Act 1999 are not applicable to the premises in question since the plinth area of the scheduled premises exceeds 14 Sq. meters.

3. The Trial Court appointed a Court Commissioner to assess the factual plinth area of the Schedule-A premises. The Commissioner, after investigation, submitted a report stating that the plinth area of the Schedule-A premises is 141 Sq. meters, and the passage/ platform in front of the shop premises measures 22.5 Sq. meters. Relying on the report submitted by the Court Commissioner, the Trial Court allowed the petition, stating that the landlord has made out a prima facie case for vacating the tenant for the purpose of carrying on business.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision petition under Section 27(2) (r) of the Act 1999. The Revision Court allowed the revision petition, stating that the plinth area of the Schedule-A premises is more than 14 Sq. meters; therefore, the provisions of the Act, 1999, are not applicable as stated under Section 2(3)(g) of the Act. Also, the original petitioner/landlord having died during the pendency of the petition, the cause for evicting the respondent/tenant does not survive for consideration.

Taking exception, this petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Revision Court has committed an error in including the platform area of the shop premises for assessing the plinth area of the Schedule-A premises, and if the same is excluded from the plinth area of the Schedule-A premises, it is less than 14 Sq. Meters.

Therefore, the provisions of the Act are applicable.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the platform area of the Schedule-A premises, which is let out for the respondents for business purposes exceeds 14 Sq. meters. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. In support, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt.P.Vatsala Upadhya and Others Vs. Srikanth Keshav Raikar reported in ILR 2004 KAR 1637. He further submits that the two shops were leased in favor of the respondents for carrying on business, and the lease is not separate and distinct; therefore, it is inferred that the lease was composite, and the plinth area of the two shop premises exceeds 14 Sq. meters.

7. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. Admittedly, the two shop premises belonging to the petitioners' grandfather were let out for lease to the respondents. Schedule-A premises were leased to the respondents under a written lease deed, and Schedule-B premises were leased to the respondents orally. The petitioners' father, during his lifetime, had filed a petition for evicting the respondent, stating that the said premises are required for his wife for printing/publishing business and a stationery mart. The petitioners' father died during the pendency of the petition before the Trial Court. The wife of the original petitioner came on record as petitioner No.1(a), and her two sons came on record as petitioner Nos.1(b) and (c) before the Trial Court. Petitioner No.1(a) died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Revision Court.

9. Section 2 of the Act deals with the application of the Act, and subsection (3) states that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any premises for non-resident