Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and

counsel for respondent at the time of admission.

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

Petitioner is the petitioner and respondent is the

respondent before the Trial Court.

3.

Petitioner is tenant under the respondent

who initiated eviction proceedings in the Court of Civil

Judge, Shahabad in HRC No.2/2010 under Section 27

(2) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (‘the

Act’ for short) to evict the petitioner from the petition

schedule premises. The respondent alleged that the

petitioner was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent

and was due in a sum of Rs.16,800/- towards arrears

of rent from Januaray, 2007 to June 2010. The rate

3

of rent being Rs.400/- per month. The respondent

issued a notice as required under Section 27(2) of the

Act as per Ex.P4 and petitioner replied to the said

legal notice as per Ex.P5. The respondent has stated

that petition premises was required for its own use.

4.

Petitioner contested the petition. One of

the main ground urged was that the place where the

petition schedule premises is situated in a notified

area committee and therefore the Act was not

applicable. The trial Court held an enquiry and

rejected the contention of the petitioner and allowed

eviction petition directing the petitioner to deliver the

vacant possession of the petition premises to the

respondent within two month from the date of its

order, failing which the respondent-Company is at

liberty to take the possession of the petition premises

with due process of law. Petitioner aggrieved by the

order passed by the trial Court preferred revision

4

petition before the I Addl. District Judge, Kalaburagi in

RRP No.3/2013. The revisional Court dismissed the

revision petition vide order dated 08.09.2017. The

petitioner being aggrieved by the same has filed this

revision petition.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that both the Courts below have committed an error in

coming to the conclusion that provisions of the Act, is

applicable to the petition premises.

6.

He submits that the Karnataka Rent Act is

not applicable to the petition premises and he placed

reliance on the Gazette Notification as per Section 2 of

the Karnataka Rent Act read with first schedule, it

becomes very clear that Chapter VI of the Act can be

applied to notified areas. The place where the premise

is situated, is a larger area spread over around more

than 100 acres and probably for this reason necessity

to constitute separate committee for its management

5

might have been felt. Inspite of constituting the

separate committee, if the Municipality was control

over the entire area and it was collecting the property

taxes, it cannot be said that notified areas constitute a

separate local government to which Rent Act cannot

be made applicable. Therefore, I do not find good

ground to entertain the revision petition. Both the

Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of

facts in favour of respondent. Revision Petition is

dismissed.

Two months time is granted to the petitioner to

vacate the petition premises from today.

Sd/-

JUDGE

msr