Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 724 (KAR)

ANUPAMA RAMESH v. VEERCHAND

2013-06-25

H.G.RAMESH

body2013
ORDER H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): If the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (‘the Rent Act’) is not applicable to a premises under any of the clauses in sub-Section (3) of Section 2 of the Rent Act, can it be defeated by relying on an exception in any other clause in the said sub-Section, is the question that requires to be determined in this revision petition. 2. This revision petition by the landlord is directed against the order dated 13th February 2012 passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (‘the trial Court’) in the suit in S.C.No.3100/2011. By the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the Rent Act is applicable to the suit premises. 3. The trial Court, though found that the plinth area of the suit premises which is at Nagarthpet in Bangalore City exceeds fourteen square meters and is used for commercial purpose, has dismissed the suit on the ground that the Rent Act is applicable to the premises in view of clause (e) of sub-Section (3) of Section 2 of the Rent Act, as the premises is within the area referred to in part A of First schedule to the Rent Act and its deemed rent or the standard rent does not exceed Rs.2,000/per month. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The contention urged by the petitioner’s counsel is that the aforesaid approach made by the trial Court would defeat clause (g) of sub-Section (3) whereby the Rent Act is not made applicable to the kind of the suit premises. 5. To examine the contention raised, it is relevant to refer to Section 2 of the Rent Act, to the extent it is necessary here: “2. Application of the Act.– ..………………………………………………….. (3) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply.– (a) to any premises belonging to.– (i) the State Government or the Central Government or a local authority; (ii) a Muzarai or religious or charitable institution; (iii) a Wakf. Explanation.– If any doubt arises whether any institution referred to in sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) above is a muzarai or religious or charitable institution or a wakf, the decision of the Regional Commissioner shall be final. (b) ……………………………………………………. (c) ……………………………………………………. (d) ……………………………………………………. Explanation.– If any doubt arises whether any institution referred to in sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) above is a muzarai or religious or charitable institution or a wakf, the decision of the Regional Commissioner shall be final. (b) ……………………………………………………. (c) ……………………………………………………. (d) ……………………………………………………. (e) to any premises, deemed rent on the date of commencement of this Act or the standard rent of which exceeds.– (i) three thousand five hundred rupees per month in any area referred to in Part A of the First Schedule; and (ii) two thousand rupees per month in any other area. Explanation.– “Deemed rent on the date of commencement of this Act” shall be the rent calculated in the manner provided in Section 7, together with revision, if any, as provided in Section 9 and decreased in the case of premises constructed after the commencement of this Act at the same rate as the rate of enhancement stipulated in the Third Schedule to reflect the position on the date of commencement of this Act; (f) ……………………………………………………. (g) to any premises used for nonresidential purpose but excluding premises having a plinth area of not exceeding fourteen square meters used for commercial purpose; (h) …..……………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………” 6. Reading sub-Section (3) as a whole, I am of opinion that, if the Rent Act is not applicable to a premises under any of the clauses in sub-Section (3), such a premises stands excluded from the applicability of the Rent Act notwithstanding anything contained in any of the other clauses in the sub-Section. This should be the interpretation of the clauses inter se in sub-Section (3) of Section 2 of the Rent Act, as this will not defeat the intention of the legislature reflected in sub-Section (3). Any other interpretation would defeat the object of sub-Section (3). 7. The object of sub-Section (3) of Section 2 of the Rent Act is to exclude certain types of premises from the applicability of the Rent Act. If the Rent Act is not applicable to a premises in view of any of the clauses i.e. clauses (a) to (h) in sub-Section (3), such a premises stands excluded from the applicability of the Rent Act and that cannot be defeated by relying on an exception in any other clause in sub-Section (3) as a legislature will not at the same time give something by one hand and take back the same thing by another. The exception provided in some of the clauses in sub-Section (3) will come into play, if the premises is not excluded from the applicability of the Rent Act under any of the other clauses. To illustrate, the Rent Act is not applicable to any premises belonging to the State Government or the Central Government or a local authority in view of clause (a). This can’t be defeated by relying on the exception provided under clause (e) on the ground that the rent of the premises does not exceed the limit stipulated therein. Similarly, if the area of a premises used for commercial purpose is more than fourteen square meters, it stands excluded from the applicability of the Rent Act in view of clause (g). This can’t be defeated on the ground that its rent is less than the amount stipulated in clause (e). To give one more instance, if a premises is excluded from the applicability of the Rent Act under clause (e), it can’t be defeated by relying on the exception provided in clause (g) on the ground that the premises is used for commercial purpose and its plinth area does not exceed fourteen square meters. 8. The trial Court having found that the suit premises is excluded from the applicability of the Rent Act under clause (g) had erred in law in taking the view that the Rent Act is applicable on the ground that the premises would fall within the exception provided in clause (e). The view taken is clearly erroneous in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.02.2012 dismissing the suit is set aside and consequently, the suit in S.C.No.3100/2011 is restored to file. 9. It is stated that the suit was originally instituted before a regular Civil Court as O.S.No.4141/2007 in the year 2007. Hence, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously and in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.