Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 461 (KAR)

M. Mohan Bhat v. K. Vishwanath Kamath

2002-07-25

CHANDRASHEKARAIAH

body2002
ORDER Chandrashekaraiah, J.--In this petition, the premises in question is a non-residential premises and the plinth area of the area of the said premises is more than 14 square mtrs. If that is so, in view of the Karnataka Rent Act of 1999, all proceedings relating to commercial premises, the plinth area is more than 14 sq. mts. Stands abated. The Supreme Court, in case of Mahendra Saree Emporium v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy reported in 2002 (4) Supreme 321 has held as follows: It is not disputed that the area of the suit premises used for non-residential purposes exceeds fourteen square meters. Hence, looking to the provisions of Clause (g) of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the 1999 Act, the provisions of the 1999 Act, do not apply to the suit premises and, therefore, by virtue of Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the 1999 Act, these proceedings shall stand abated. 2. The Supreme Court, in another case reported in Sultaan Mohiyuddin and Others Vs. Basheer Ahmed Shariff and Others, AIR 2002 SC 2441 has held as follows: During the pendency of these proceedings, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 has come into force with effect from 31.12.2001. According to the counter filed in this Court by the Respondent-tenant, the area of the suit premises let out for non-residential purpose exceeds 14 square metres and therefore, the premises are exempt from the provisions of the 1999 Act. It is the plea of the Respondent-tenant that the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 being not applicable to the suit premises by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 2(3)(g), the proceedings shall stand abated under Section70(2)(c) of the 1999 Act. The dimension of the premises, its being non-residential and the applicability of the relevant provisions of the 1999 Act referred to hereinabove is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant-landlord. The proceedings, therefore, stand abated. Nothing survives for adjudication on merits. The appeal be treated as disposed of. 3. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, since the premises in question is a non-residential premises and the plinth area is more than 14 sq. mts., the proceedings stands abated. Hence, the following order: (a) House Rent Revision Petition is disposed of declaring the proceedings for eviction as abated. 3. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, since the premises in question is a non-residential premises and the plinth area is more than 14 sq. mts., the proceedings stands abated. Hence, the following order: (a) House Rent Revision Petition is disposed of declaring the proceedings for eviction as abated. (b) However, liberty is reserved to the land owners to initiate separate proceedings for eviction under the General law.