ORDER 1. This revision petition is filed against order of eviction made in S.C.No. 1292/2011 dated 08.11.2011. I have heard Sri. S. Shaker Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel for respondent. 2. Sri. S. Shaker Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant has made following submissions: I The plinth area of schedule premises (commercial premises) is less than 14 Sq.mts., and provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 are applicable. Therefore, the respondent/landlord should have filed an eviction petition under provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The trial court should not have passed eviction order under provisions of the Small Causes Court Act. II The respondent has not stated about the security deposit and goodwill, which will be refunded at the time of termination of tenancy. III The tenancy has not been properly terminated. 3. The learned counsel for respondent/landlord has made following submissions: I The suit was filed before the City Civil Court in O.S. No. 8910/2007 pursuant to the order made by this court in CRP 46/2007 dated 01.10.2007. In view of full bench judgment of this court reported in ILR 2011 KAR 229 (in the case of Abdul Wajid -vs- A.S. Onkarappa) the suit was transferred to the court of Small Causes as per the order made by the X Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. II The suit schedule property measures East to West 16.6 feet and North to South 13.6 feet, the plinth area is more than 14 Sq.mts., therefore, provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act are not applicable. III There is proper termination of tenancy. It is not necessary for the Landlord to state about security deposit in the termination notice. 4. I have gone through the evidence on record. It is not disputed and cannot be disputed that as per lease deed entered into between the parties (which is not disputed by either parties) schedule premises measures 10'x15'. The schedule premises is a corner shop. This fact is mentioned in the quit notice issued by the respondent/land lord. 5. In the decisions reported in B. Chikkanna and Another Vs. Smt. K.M. Jagadamba, (2007) 1 KarLJ 330 and Sri M.L. Shiva Kumar S/o. M. Lakshman Gowda Vs. Sri N. Annappa Since deceased by L.Rs. The schedule premises is a corner shop. This fact is mentioned in the quit notice issued by the respondent/land lord. 5. In the decisions reported in B. Chikkanna and Another Vs. Smt. K.M. Jagadamba, (2007) 1 KarLJ 330 and Sri M.L. Shiva Kumar S/o. M. Lakshman Gowda Vs. Sri N. Annappa Since deceased by L.Rs. (Smt. Manji, W/o Late Narayan, Smt Saroja, W/o Late Annappa, Kumari Anusha D/o Late Annappa and Kumari Amitha D/o Late Annappa) and Sri M.C. Krishnappa S/o Vobegowda, (2011) 3 KarLJ 657 (since deceased) by L.R's and Another) the Division Bench of this court has held: Plinth area is not the carpet area, it is carpet area and the area covered by the walls of the premises, which constitutes 'plinth area' which is to be taken into consideration. If plinth area of the schedule premises exceeds 14 Sq. Mts., the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable. 6. In view of what has been held in the aforestated decisions, it is necessary to find out the plinth area of schedule premises. The respondent/landlord has unsuccessfully contended that suit schedule premises measures East to West 16.6 feet and North to South 13.6 feet, which is contrary to terms of lease deed and terms of quit notice, wherein the area of schedule premises is stated as 150 Sq. ft. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that 14 Sq. Mts. is equivalent to 150.69 Sq.ft. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether this area of 150 Sq.ft., stated in the lease deed and quit notice would represent the carpet area or plinth area. 7. The petitioner/tenant, during cross-examination has admitted that-suit schedule premises measures East to West 10 feet and North to South 15 feet however, he cannot say whether these measurements include thickness of the wall. The petitioner/tenant has admitted that thickness of wall is about 3/4th foot or 9 inches. The petitioner/tenant has not disputed the photographs of schedule premises marked as per Ex.P7 and P8. As could be seen from these photographs, the schedule premises is a corner shop and the schedule premises has rolling shutters on two sides. It appears, the rolling shutters are fixed instead of constructing walls. We also find from the description of premises in the petition schedule that schedule premises has rolling shutters on western side and also on southern side. It appears, the rolling shutters are fixed instead of constructing walls. We also find from the description of premises in the petition schedule that schedule premises has rolling shutters on western side and also on southern side. If area of walls on two sides and area available upto rolling shutters on the western side and southern side are taken into consideration, the plinth area of schedule premises will be more than 14 Sq. Mts., or 150.69 Sq Ft. When the parties entered into lease deed, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 was not in force. There was no need for the parties to accurately ascertain either plinth area or carpet area of the schedule premises. It is probable that petitioner has given measurements of schedule premises as 10 ft.x15 ft., by taking into consideration the carpet area. Therefore, having regard to the plinth area of schedule premises, I hold that provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act are not applicable to the instant case. The petitioner/tenant has contended that the respondent/landlord has accepted the rent tendered for the period subsequent to quit notice. Therefore, quit notice is not valid. 8. In a decision reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1966 (in the case of Sarup Singh Gupta -vs- Jagdish Singh & Others) the Supreme Court has held: Where the landlord even after accepting the rent tendered for period subsequent to quit notice, did file a suit for eviction, and even while prosecuting the suit accepted rent which was being paid to him by the tenant, it cannot be said that by accepting rent, he intended to waive the notice to quit and to treat the lease as subsisting. Therefore, from acceptance of rent tendered for the period subsequent to quit notice and after filing of suit for eviction, it cannot be held that landlord intended to waive the notice to quit and to treat the lease as subsisting. 9. The learned trial judge on consideration of these contentions has held that there is valid termination of lease in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 10. On reconsideration of the matter, I find that the plinth area of suit schedule premises is more than 14 Sq. Mts. Therefore, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act are not applicable to the instant case. 10. On reconsideration of the matter, I find that the plinth area of suit schedule premises is more than 14 Sq. Mts. Therefore, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act are not applicable to the instant case. In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in 2006 AIR SCW 1966 (in the case of Sarup Singh Gupta -vs- Jagdish Singh & Others) even if the landlord has accepted the rent after issuance of quit notice, it cannot be said that he had waived quit notice to treat the lease as subsisting. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The learned trial judge has granted one month time from 08.11.2011 to quit, vacate and deliver the schedule premises to the respondent/landlord. Having regard to the fact that petitioner/tenant has been carrying on business in a commercial area and he requires sometime to shift his business to another premises, I deem it proper to extend time granted by the trial court for a period of six months from today. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. The impugned order is confirmed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted time for a period of six months from today to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of schedule premises to the respondent/landlord.