Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.89 seconds)
Documents citing Smt Anupama Ramesh W/O Shri K Ramesh Babu vs Shri Veerchand S/O Late Vagtawarmalji on 25 June, 2013

Sri Ganesh N vs Mr N Ananthan Pillai on 16 June, 2023

15. This Court in CRP No.182/2018 decided on 16.01.2019 held that even one of the conditions mentioned in Section 2 of the Act is fulfilled, the provision of the Act are not applicable and considered the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Anupama (supra). This Court in its judgment passed in CRP No.452/2013 dated 16.01.2014 held that if the rate of rent is more than Rs.3,500/- per month, it will fall under the Transfer of Property Act. This Court in its order passed in R.S.A.No.1767/2022 dated 06.02.2023 held that if the rate of rent is more than Rs.2,000/- per month in respect of a commercial premises, the Rent Act is not applicable and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable since the premises comes within the purview of Part B of First Schedule of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Sri. Krishnaprasad A vs Sri. L Doreswamy Advocate on 11 August, 2023

26. No doubt, the counsel relying upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Anupama Ramesh case brought to notice of this Court Section 2(3)(e) of the Act and the same is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case on hand, there is no rent at all and only premium was paid and attracting Section 2(3)(e) of the Act does not arise. The counsel also relied upon the other judgment in the case of V.GK.DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT ENGG (PVT) LTD. and brought to notice paragraph No.13, but the same is helpful to the revision petitioner wherein the observation is made that the object of the Rent Act is to protect one class of tenants who are residing in residential premises whose monthly rent is not more than Rs.3,500/- in Part A of first schedule and Rs.2,000/- to the residential, in second schedule and the commercial or shop premises, the measurement of which is not more than 14 sq. meters. It is further discussed that non fixation of standard rent or deemed rent in respect of the premises alone is not the 24 criteria to exclude the premises from the application of provisions of Rent Act. It is further observed that, even in the absence of fixation of standard rent or deemed rent to a premises and if the contractual rate of rent exceeds Rs.3,500/- per month for a premises in any area referred in Part A of first schedule, the provisions of Rent Act are not applicable. But in the case on hand it has to be noted that first of all no rent is fixed by the parties and also it is important to note that, there is a contract between the petitioner and the respondent that no rent is payable and only premium alone is paid and when there is an explicit contract between the petitioner and respondent that no rent is fixed and only premium was paid and he has to continue the possession of the premises until refunding of the premium amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The question of either fixing of the standard rent or non fixing of the standard rent does not arise. There is an explicit contract between the parties, no rent is payable and only premium amount was paid and this aspect has not been taken note of by the Trial Court while invoking Section 2(3)(e) of Karnataka Rent Act and Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that Court has no jurisdiction 25 since it attract Section 2(3)(e) of Karnataka Rent Act and the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and fails to consider factual aspects of the case and there is no any contract and even tenant got fixed the standard rent subsequent to the filing of the petition also even he did not comply the same and his intention is only to ouster the jurisdiction of the Court getting fixed the rent from the Rent Controller and the very conduct of the respondent is not taken note of by the Trial Court and also fails to take note of the fact that the respondent is a tenant and he is also a practicing advocate and he indulged in all sorts of efforts made by him and the very admission given by him in the cross examination that he had agreed to vacate the premises on receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- and even during hearing the arguments, the counsel for the petitioner offered to pay the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- what he had paid to the petitioner as premium and the same is not accepted and adopted the dilatory tactics to continue in the premises.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

M/S M U Motiwala vs Sri C S Chandrashekar on 16 January, 2019

The Trial Court has also not taken into account the decision in the case of S.ANUPAMA RAMESH (supra). The impugned order therefore, suffers from the vice of non application of mind and has been passed in a cryptic and cavalier 7 manner. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide the application afresh by a speaking order in the light of the decision referred to supra.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Aradhe - Full Document

Sri M S Vijayendra vs Sri B A Ramesh on 17 February, 2023

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 -5- RSA No. 198 of 2023 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, Sections 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 appeal is filed before this Court by the defendant/respondent.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document
1   2 Next