M/S Bharat Electricals vs Jaypee Cement
2022 Latest Caselaw 4225 Kant

                            1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


                HRRP No.200001/2018
Between:

M/s. Bharat Electricals
Prop. Anwar S/o: Farooq Ahmed,
Age: Major,
R/o: B6/1 Jaypee Cement Colony,
Shahabad, Tq: Chittapur.
                                             ... Petitioner
(By Sri.Raja Venkatappa Naik, Advocate
 for Sri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, Adv.)

And:

Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited,
Through its
Sr.Manager Personal & Admn.
Shahabad, Tq: Chittapur.
                                          ... Respondent
(By Sri. R.S.Siddhapurkar, Advocate)

      This HRRP is filed under Section 46(1) of Karnataka
Rent Act, 1999, praying to allow the revision petition
setting aside the judgment and order passed by Learned
1st Addl. District Judge at Kalaburagi dismissing RRP
No.3/2013 dated 8.09.2017 confirming the judgment and
order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge
at Shahabad allowing HRC Petition No.2/2010 and etc.
                             2




      This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:-


                        ORDER

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

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

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

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