Regular Second Appeal against judgment and decree in landlord-tenant suit for recovery of possession. Court held Karnataka Rent Act inapplicable due to rent rate exceeding statutory threshold, dismissing appeal and ordering vacancy.
Appellant given three months to vacate and hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent, from today.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 198 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.198 OF 2023 (POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI M.S. VIJAYENDRA S/O M.M. SHESHAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT SIRAGAYNDA VILLAGE-577133 CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJESH K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND :
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI B.A. RAMESH S/O APPU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RA/T ANJUMAN STREET CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY-577101
…RESPONDENT
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ETC.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA No. 198 of 2023
J U D G M E N T
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
and decree dated 29.11.2022 passed in R.A.No.12/2022 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru.
RSA No. 198 of 2023
As per the terms and conditions of the rent agreement, the defendant had agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and he has paid the advance amount of Rs.20,000/- and denied the contention that the plaintiff has demanded the defendant to vacate and hand over the
vacant possession of the schedule premises. The lease agreement in question provides an option to the parties to extend the lease for a period more than eleven months and in case, the lease is extended for a term of more than three years, the monthly rent of the premises has to be increased by 10%. As such continuation of the defendant in the schedule premises as a tenant is in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The defendant also admitted the issuance of legal notice dated 08.12.2017 and he has
RSA No. 198 of 2023
given the reply and he is paying the rent regularly and also contend that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable since the measurement of the suit shop premises is 10 x 12 feet. If the measurement of the property is less than 1000 sq. feet, the plaintiff has to file HRC petition, whereas, the plaintiff has filed the present suit which is not maintainable.
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 reappreciation 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.
RSA No. 198 of 2023
Courts have failed to take note of the very proviso of Section 2(3)(e) and (g) of the Karnataka Rent Act and even though it is contended that the suit is not maintainable, committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and confirming the same by the First Appellate Court hence, this Court has to frame substantial question of law.
RSA No. 198 of 2023
the Act and also the provision of the Act and comes to the conclusion that provision of the Act will not applicable to the premises enumerated under Section 2(3)(a) to (h) of the Act. According to Section 2(3) (e)(i) and (ii) of the Act, if the rate of rent exceeds 3,500/- per month to a premises situated in any area referred to in Part-A of the first schedule; and Rs.2,000/- per month to any other area, the provision of the Act are not applicable.
RSA No. 198 of 2023
the commercial purpose and rent is more than Rs.2,000/therefore, the Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable in view of Section 3(2)(e). The rate of rent is not in dispute and in the written statement, it is admitted that while entering into the agreement, the rate of rent was fixed as Rs.2,500/- and also contend that the same is subject to the enhancement of 10% for every three years. When such pleading is made by the defendant in the written statement itself, when the rate of rent is Rs.2,500/-, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. This Court also in R.S.A.No.1767/2022 dated 06.02.2023 discussed in detail with regard to the very same argument was canvassed by both the counsel and in detail discussed the same and also taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4696 (referred supra) and in paragraph 12 this Court held that no dispute with regard to the dimension of the premises in which the appellant is running the business in that suit premises is measuring only 90 square feet and also not exceeds 14 square meters and also when the rate of rent is more than
RSA No. 198 of 2023
Rs.2,500/- per month, the applicability of Rent Act does not arise and the Court has to take note of both the rent as well as the area which is sought for eviction. In paragraph 13, it is held that the provisions of the Act is very clear that if the rate of rent is more than Rs.2,000/per month in respect of a commercial premises, the Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable and Section 106 attracts for initiation of proceedings against the tenant by issuing the quit notice. But the fact that issuance of quit notice is not in dispute and in this case also the issuance of quit notice was not disputed and the defendant has categorically admitted that quit notice was issued. When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any grounds to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
RSA No. 198 of 2023
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is given three months time to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises in favour of the respondent from today.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any,
does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises regarding the applicability of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 to a commercial premises measuring 110 sq. feet with a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500.
Whether the suit for recovery of possession was maintainable despite defendant's claim that a Recovery of Harassed Case (HRC) petition was the proper forum.
Whether the rate of rent exceeding Rs. 2,000 per month excludes the premises from the scope of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SMT. ANUPAMA RAMESH vs SHRI VEERCHANDReferred¶35
ILR 2013 KAR 4696 · Who else cites this
decided 06.02.2023Explained¶47
R.S.A.No.1767/2022
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri M.S. Vijayendra
Sri B.A. Ramesh
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
