ORDER : This petition is listed to Admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.03.2022 passed in S.C.No.1596/2019 by the Trial Court in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of CPC consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is rejected. 3. The counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contend that the Court below has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable and HRC Act ought to have been invoked and the very conclusion arrived by the Trial Court is erroneous. The counsel would vehemently contend that Section 2(3)(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Rent Act’) is clear that what are the subject matters are excluded under the Rent Act. The counsel for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court to Section 2(3)(e) of the Rent Act and contend that when Section 2(3)(e) is very specific that standard rent is exceeds Rs.3,500/-, the landlord cannot file any petition under the Rent Act. The counsel would vehemently contend that rate of rent is Rs.4,500/-per month. Hence, as per Section 2(3)(e) of the Rent Act, if the rent is payable more than Rs.3,500/-, the Rent Act is not applicable. Hence, the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application. Hence, it requires interference. 4. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4696 in the case of SMT. ANUPAMA RAMESH vs SHRI VEERCHAND and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 7 wherein this Court held 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. It is further observed that this exception clause cannot 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. 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. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that under Section 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act, exception provided can’t defeat the right of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that when Section 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act is very clear with regard to excluding the premises which is less than 14 square meters and HRC Act is applicable and not Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘T.P. Act’). Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error and the Trial Court having considering both the provisions i.e., Section 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act and also relying upon the judgments reported in ILR 2005 KAR 2753 and 2011(3) KAR 657 (DB) rightly comes to the conclusion that HRC Act is applicable and not the proceedings under Section 106 of T.P. Act. The counsel also relied upon the very same judgments and brought to notice of this Court that the discussions made in both the judgments with regard to Section 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court wherein also discussed with regard to Section 2 (3)(g) of the Rent Act where it is also held that the Rent Act is applicable if the premises measuring less than 14 square meters. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also in keeping the principles laid down in the judgments referred by the respective counsel, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court that: Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and whether the said order suffers from legality and infirmity? 7. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record it is not in dispute that the rate of rent is Rs.4,500/-per month in respect of the premises which is the subject matter of the petition and the same is a commercial premises and the nature of the premises is also not in dispute. Now, the question before the Court is that whether the petition ought to have been filed under HRC Act or to invoke Section 106 of T.P. Act. The counsel for the revision petitioner has filed S.C.No.1596/2019 after issuing the notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act against the respondent herein and filed the petition for ejection. There is no dispute with regard to the rate of rent is concerned. Then this Court has to examine the very statute with regard to the application of the Rent Act. Section 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act is extracted as below: 2. Application of the Act. – … … (3) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply. – … … … … (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; … (g) to any premises used for non-residential purpose but excluding premises having a plinth area of not exceeding fourteen square meters used for commercial purpose; 8. Having extracted Section 2(3)(e) of the Rent Act, it is clear that Schedule I, Part A is in respect of the premises which is applicable where the Municipal Corporation Act is applicable hence, the standard rent is fixed as Rs.3,500/-. Having extracted Section 2(3)(e) of the Rent Act, it is clear that Schedule I, Part A is in respect of the premises which is applicable where the Municipal Corporation Act is applicable hence, the standard rent is fixed as Rs.3,500/-. I have already pointed out that the rate of rent is Rs.4,500/-per month hence, it is excluded the premises which is more than the rent of Rs.3,500/-per month, hence, the Rent Act is not applicable in terms of Section 2(3)(e). The counsel for the respondent also made his effort to convince this Court bringing to the notice of this Court to statement of objects and reasons. No doubt, some of the features of the proposed measurement was also discussed in the statement of objects and reasons. Wherein it is specifically mentioned with regard to the application is now restricted to any residential building the standard rent of which does not exceed Rs.3,500/-per month in the area provided under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and Rs.2,000/-per month in other areas and a commercial building having plinth area of not exceeding fourteen square meters. 9. The counsel would vehemently contend that the rate of rent is fixed to Rs.3,500/-only in respect of residential premises. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted for the reason that the word used in Section 2(3)(e) is to ‘any premises’ deemed rent on that date of commencement of this Act or the standard rent of which exceeds. Nowhere it is mentioned that it is in respect of residential premises or non-residential premises. When such being the case, the very contention of the respondent counsel cannot be accepted. No doubt, he has brought to notice of this Court to the judgment of Division Bench as well as the Single Bench. On perusal of the judgments quoted by the counsel for the respondent, nowhere discussed with regard to Section 2(3)(e) of the Rent Act. No dispute with regard to the fact that under Section 2(3)(g) if the premises is not exceeding 14 square meters, HRC Act is applicable. The Court has to read conjointly both the provisions of Section 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act and the Division Bench and Single Bench of this Court not discussed both the provisions and only discussed Section 2(3)(g) and an exception to the same. The Court has to read conjointly both the provisions of Section 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act and the Division Bench and Single Bench of this Court not discussed both the provisions and only discussed Section 2(3)(g) and an exception to the same. But the very statue specifically held that Rent Act is not applicable but this Court in the case of ANUPAMA RAMESH referred supra discussed both Section 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act and also discussed in paragraph 7 with regard to the very objection of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Rent Act. 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) of Section 2, 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 very discussion is clear that the exception given under Section 2(3)(g) will not defeat the very Section 2(3)(e) of the Rent Act. 10. This Court also in detail discussed having taken note of Section 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act and also comes to the conclusion that 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. 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. In this judgment in detail discussed the scope of Section 2(3)(e) as well as 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act. 11. In the case on hand, no doubt, the premises is less than 14 square meters. But the very Act specifically held that any premises standard rent is more than Rs.3,500/-, it excludes the applicability of the Rent Act. The judgment of this Court in the case of ANUPAMA RAMESH wherein discussed with regard to the Section 2(3)(e) as well as 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act is applicable to the case on hand hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Trial Court has not committed any error cannot be accepted. The judgments referred by the counsel for respondent are not applicable to the case on hand wherein not discussed the very proviso of Section 2(3)(e) of the Rent Act. Hence, the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC in coming to the conclusion that the same is barred by law. The very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and committed an error in interpreting Section 2(3)(e) as well as 2(3)(g) of the Rent Act. Hence, the order is liable to be set aside by answering the point as affirmative. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.03.2022 passed in S.C.No.1596/2019 by the Trial Court is set aside and consequently, the suit is restored. The suit is of the year 2019, hence, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose off the matter within six months from today. The respective counsel and parties are also directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the matter within the stipulated time. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court without expecting any notice on 07.07.2023.