The court ruled that acknowledgment of rent exceeding statutory thresholds affirms jurisdiction under the Transfer of Property Act, negating claims under the Karnataka Rent Act.

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Jaysham Jayasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Venkatachalapathy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Revision Petitioner is the defendant in S.C No.96/2023 on the file of the IX Addl. Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru , challenging the validity of the judgment dated 02.07.2025.

3. Operative portion of the order reads as under:“The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.

The defendant is hereby directed to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this order. In the event of failure of the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property, the plaintiff is at liberty to get delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property by due process of law.The plaintiff is granted liberty to file separate case to claim alleged mesne profit under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC in the manner known to law.Draw decree accordingly.”

4. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:A suit came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff contending that revision petitioner/defendant is a tenant in respect of the shop unit privately numbered as 14/1 in the ground floor of the property bearing Municipal No.14, situated at 17^th Cross, Magadi Chord Road, Bengaluru, Corporation Ward No.126, Old Ward No.35, within the limits of Maruthi Mandira Ward, BBMP, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 7 feet 9 inches, North to South 11 feet 9 inches, bounded on East by 17^th Cross, West by Shop No.14/2, North by 21^st Main Road, South by residential premises bearing No.1714 hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.

5. Plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the Gift Deed executed by his father Sri M.S.Swaminathan on 14.02.2020. Thereafter plaintiff got mutated the revenue entries in his name.

6. Plaintiff contended that the defendant is a tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- and defendant has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the refundable security deposit. It is further contented that defendant took possession of the suit property for commercial purpose that is to run STD booth, Fax, Xerox and booking tickets for the travel related items and is entitled to carry on the said business during the subsistence of the lease period and it shall not affect any major addition or alteration to the premises.

7. Plaintiff further contended that defendant became defaulter in the payment of rent. Therefore plaintiff was constrained to terminate the lease by issuing a notice vide Ex. P-6 in respect of rent agreement dated 01.01.2021 marked at Ex. P-4.

8. On receipt of the notice, defendant issued an untenable reply vide Ex.P-10 which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for ejectment.

9. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared before the Court and filed written statement admitting the tenancy, but denied the other averments in the plaint and specifically contended that the suit for ejectment is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act , 1999 and the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

10. Defendant also contended that the schedule premises was much less than the plinth area of 14 square meters. Therefore, the Karnataka Rent Act will apply and not the Transfer of Property Act . Therefore, Sections 2 (3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the would come into picture and not the provisions of . Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

11. Learned Trial Judge recorded the evidence of the parties.

12. Plaintiff got examined himself as P.W-1 and placed on recor