Karnataka High Court
Sri M C Kumar vs B M Satish on 27 March, 2014
Author: Mohan .M.Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
Civil Revision Petition No.27/2014
BETWEEN:
Sri. M.C. Kumar
Aged about 58 years
S/o Chandrashekar
R/at No. 32, Subramanyam Lane
Akkipet Cross,
Bangalore-560053
..Petitioner
(By Sri C.M. Nagabushana, Adv., )
AND :
B.M. Satish
Aged about 52 years
S/o Muniswamappa
R/at No. 457, OTC Road
Cottonpet, Bangalore-560053
..Respondent
(By, Sri K. Ramesh, Adv.,)
2
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 18 of
Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 against the
Judgment and decree dated 17.12.2013 passed in S.C. No.
511/2012 on the file of IV Additional Senior Judge,
Bangalore with a prayer to set aside the said Judgment and
Decree.
This petition coming on for admission, this day the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
The respondent herein is a landlord of the premises in question, of which the petitioner herein is a tenant. Suit for ejectment came to be filed by the respondent before the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in S.C. No.511/2012 against the petitioner herein seeking direction to the defendant to quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises in question. He has also sought for mesne profits. After giving adequate opportunity to both the parties, the Judgment and Order is passed by the Court below for ejectment of the petitioner herein from the suit 3 schedule premises. The same is impugned in this Revision Petition.
2. Sri Nagabushana, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the rent is Rs.1,850/- per month; since the rent is less than Rs.3,500/- per month, Karnataka Rent Act is applicable and therefore the suit is not maintainable. He further submits that there are two separate tenancies viz., one for the residential premises and another for non-residential premises and therefore atleast in respect of the residential premises, the suit is not maintainable. Lastly he submits that the Court below is not justified in not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner who was the defendant before the trial Court.
4
The said submissions are opposed by the learned advocate for the respondent by arguing in support of the Judgment of the Court below.
3. Both the learned advocates have taken me through the material on record and the previous orders passed by the Court below as well as the order sheet maintained by the Court below.
4. I have perused the order sheet maintained by the Court below. Notings recorded therein adequately make it clear that the petitioner was given number of opportunities to cross-examine PW-1 and plead his evidence. At the first instance, the defendant did not even cross-examine the PW-1. However the Court below by taking lenient view subsequently permitted defendant to cross-examine PW-1 and thereafter the matter was posted for the evidence of defendant. Despite granting number of opportunities, the 5 defendant did not examine any witness. However an application came to be filed by a person calling himself as power of attorney of the defendant to examine him on behalf of the defendant. It is relevant to note that the defendant has not filed such application. There was no prayer of the defendant to examine power of attorney. On the other hand the prayer was made by the power of attorney himself that he wants to depose on behalf of the defendant. Such request was rightly turned down by the Court below by passing a detailed order. Even thereafter the matter was posted for recording the evidence of the defendant. However the defendant did not lead evidence. Having no other alternative, the trial Court proceeded with the matter and decided the same on merits. Therefore it is not open for the defendant to contend now before this Court that he did not have opportunity before the Court below.
6
5. The other contentions as raised before this Court relating to jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit etc., are considered by the Court below at an earlier point of time. The defendant had filed an application (I.A. No.4) before the Court below to dismiss the suit by contending that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act. The Court below has rightly rejected such application by assigning valid reasons on 13.9.2013. The said order has attained finality and the same is not questioned.
Be that as it may, as is clear from Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act, the said Act is not applicable to any premises having the plinth area exceeding 14 square meters and is used for commercial purpose. In the matter on hand, admittedly non-residential premises/commercial premises is more than 14 square meters. Therefore the suit is maintainable inasmuch as the Karnataka Rent Act is 7 not applicable. As is clear from the schedule of the premises, the premises in question is a composite premises consisting of second floor as well as the ground floor and the tenant is one and the same. Tenancy is also composite. The defendant is running the business in the ground floor and is residing in the second floor. He is paying the rent of Rs.1,850/- per month in respect of both the premises. Therefore it is not open for him to contend that two premises are totally different. Such a contention cannot be accepted. Since it is the composite premises & composite tenancy, the suit for ejectment was maintainable before the Civil Court in view of the bar under Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act. Hence I find that the Judgment & Order passed by the Court below is just and proper. No interference is called for.
Petition fails and the same stands dismissed. However the petitioner is granted nine months time to 8 quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises. The petitioner shall voluntarily vacate the premises without forcing the respondent/plaintiff to file execution petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-