IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.580 OF 2015 (SC) BETWEEN:
HARISH CHANDRA SHETTY, S/O LATE SHAMA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, ADIGA FAST FOOD, SHOP NO.7, SHRI BHAVANI KALYANA, MANDIRA TRUST BUILDING, NO.92, NORTH ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.J.ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SHRI BHAVANI KALYANA MANDIRA TRUST, NO.92, NORTH ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560004, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE, DHANANJAY L MANAE. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.R.BHADRE GOWDA AND PUNEETH, ADVOCATES) **** THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.09.2015 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1301/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU, (SCCH-22), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR MEAN PROFIT AND ARREARS OF RENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though this revision petition is listed for admission, heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits for final disposal.
2. The counsel for the respondent is absent.
This Court had no opportunity to hear the submission of the counsel for the respondent landlord.
3. The petitioner before this Court is the tenant. This petition is filed for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 08.09.2015 passed by the learned XX Additional Small Causes Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH 22) in S.C. No.1301/2012.
4. The facts briefly stated are that the plaintiff trust being the landlord had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner tenant by issuing a notice of termination of tenancy dated 02.07.2012. When the tenant failed to vacate the premises the eviction petition was filed.
5. On service of notice the defendant tenant appeared before the Court and filed the written statement wherein he had disputed jural relationship of landlord and tenant and has also taken up a specific contention regarding the measurement of the schedule premises that it is less than 14 Sq. Mtrs. and the monthly rent is only Rs.3225/-. Thus the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court is barred under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
6. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff trust is the owner and defendant is tenant ?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that he has terminated the tenancy of the defendant ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages/mesne profits?
4. What order or decree?
7. On behalf of the landlord namely the trustee was examined as PW.1 and the documents were marked as EXs.P1 to P12. The tenant/petitioner was examined as DW.1. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record the trial Court has decreed the suit and directed the defendant petitioner to vacate and hand over the suit schedule premises within two months. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner tenant has preferred the revision petition.
8. The petitioner tenant has challenged the impugned order on several grounds. The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that the present suit is barred under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Act as the petition premises is less than 14 Sq. Mtrs.
9. The description of the schedule property shown in the impugned order is as under:
“ All the piece and parcel of shop premises No.7, Godown, M/s. Adiga Fast Food, Ground Floor, Sri Bhavani Kalyana Mandir Trust Building, No.92, North Anjaneya Temple Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 04, measuring 10 ft x 12 ft and bounded on the :-
East by : EAT Street, West by : Choultry compound, North by : Choultry East entrance, South by : Shop No.8.”
10. Even according to the respondent landlord the petition premises in occupation of the petitioner tenant was only measuring 10 feet x 12 feet. Thus the total area of the petition premises would be 120 Sq.
Feet. Admittedly the total area is less than 14 Sq. Mtrs. as contended by the tenant. Under these circumstances, the petition filed for eviction was not maintainable and the same was barred in view of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Act. Therefore, the finding given by the trial Court and the decree passed against the defendant tenant cannot be sustained in law.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 08.09.2015 in S.C. No.1301/2012 passed by the learned XX Additional Small Causes Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (SCCH No.22) is set aside.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl