C Raju S/O. Chinnaiah Goundar vs Doddamani Raghavendra Setty
2022 Latest Caselaw 177 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
                          BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                 M.S.A.NO.100037/2021
BETWEEN
C.RAJU S/O CHINNAIAH GOUNDAR,
AGE 85 YEARS OCC. PETTY BUSINESS,
R/O PORTION OF DOOR NO.519 AND
ASSESSMENT NO.482, 4TH WARD, PATEL NAGAR,
BEEDI ANGADI OWNER,
OPP VENKATESHWAR KALYANMANTAP,
HOSAPETE- DIST.BALLARI- 583201.
                                                ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV.)

AND
1.    DODDAMANI RAGHAVENDRA SETTY
      S/O. DODDAMANI GOPALA KRISHNA SETTY,
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DISTRICT MANAGER KOF,
      HOSAPETE., R/O. 4TH WARD, SHIVA NILAYA UPSTAIRS,
      1ST CROSS, PATEL NAGAR, HOSAPETE CITY,
      BALLARI DISTRICT-583201,

2.    DODDAMANI GURUDATTA SETTY,
      S/O DODDAMANI GOPALA KRISHNA SHETTY,
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
      R/O. 4TH WARD, SHIVA NILAYA UPSTAIRS,
      1ST CROSS, PATEL NAGAR, HOSPETE,
      BALLARI DISTRICT-583201.              ... RESPONDENT

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(U) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
PRAYING THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.09.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HOSAPETE, IN RA NO.38/2019
REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2019
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE
IN O.S.NO.213/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE
                              2




JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2019 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL    CIVIL   JUDGE   AND    JMFC,   HOSAPETE  IN
O.S.NO.213/2015 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        : JUDGMENT :

This captioned miscellaneous second appeal is filed

by defendant questioning the remand order passed by

the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.38/2019.

2. The facts leading to the above said case are as

under:

Respondent has filed ejectment suit by issuing a

quit notice under the provisions of Transfer of Properties

Act ("TP Act" for short). However, the present appellant

took a defence that the suit before the Civil Court is not

maintainable as the admitted rent does not exceed

Rs.2,000/- and therefore falls under the provision of

Section 2(3)(e)(ii) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ("the

Rent Act" for short).

3. The Trial Court though held that the plinth

area is more than 14 Sq.Mtrs., however, by applying the

provisions of Section 2(3)(e)(ii) of the Rent Act,

proceeded to hold that the suit is not maintainable.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the

respondents/plaintiffs preferred appeal before the First

Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having

examined the provisions of the Rent Act, has placed

reliance on the judgment rendered by the coordinate

Bench of this Court in CRP.No.141/2012.

5. This Court in an identical case was of the view

that the Rent Act is not applicable to a premise in view of

any of the Clauses i.e., Clauses A to H in Sub-Section (3)

and therefore such premises stand excluded from

applicability of the Rent Act and that cannot be defeated

by relying on exception in any other Clause in Sub-

Section (3).

6. On plain reading of Section 2(3)(e)(i) & (ii),

this Court would find that the said Section excludes the

applicability of the Rent Act to any premises where

deemed rent on the date of commencement of this Act

exceeds Rs.2,000/- per month in any other area.

Probably the Trial Court has misread Section 2(3)(e)(ii)

while holding that the suit is not maintainable. The said

Section only contemplates instances where the

applicability of the Rent Act is excluded if the deemed

rent is more than Rs.2,000/- per month. But that does

not necessarily mean that if the rent is less than

Rs.2,000/- per month, Rent Act would be applicable.

Apart from the instances referred in Section

2(3)(a)(b)(c)(d)(g) & (H), the applicability of Rent Act is

excluded even in those cases where the deemed rent is

more than Rs.2,000/- per month. The present case

squarely falls under Section 2(3)(g). Admittedly, the

plinth area of the premises is more than 14 Sq.Mtrs. and

is being used for non residential purpose and therefore

provisions of the Rent Act are not applicable and Section

2(3)(g) of the Rent Act is squarely applicable to the

present case on hand.

7. In this background, the First Appellate Court

was of the view that the Trial Court erred in summarily

dismissing the suit while passing orders on

maintainability of the suit. The First Appellate Court

found that this order is perverse and therefore remitted

the matter for de-nova trial.

8. I have carefully perused the order under

challenge and also the provisions of Sections 2(3)(e)(ii)

as well as 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act and also given my

anxious consideration to the judgment relied by the First

Appellate Court rendered by this Court in

CRP.No.141/2012.

9. If the plinth area of the subject matter of the

suit exceeds 14 Sq.Mtrs., it is a trite law that the landlord

has to terminate the lease by invoking the provisions of

the TP Act and thereafter approach competent civil Court

to seek delivery of possession from the lessee.

10. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or

infirmity in the order under challenge. The remand order

passed by the First Appellate Court is in accordance with

law. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits, accordingly

the same stands dismissed.

11. All contentions of the parties are kept open

and the same are to be examined by the Trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE EM