GANESH N Vs. N. ANANTHAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 7/3/2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in S.C.No.15125/2022, on the file of the XVII ASCJ, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of CPC.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner/defendant No.3 in S.C.No.15125/2022 is that the petitioner herein is a tenant along with respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein. It is contended that the husband of defendant No.1 and the father of defendant Nos.2 to 5 Sri late A. Nataraj was a tenant under the plaintiff on oral agreement in respect of ground floor shop premises measuring 7 x 11 ft. which is morefully described in the schedule. The said Nataraj was paying the rent of Rs.3,000.00 per month to the plaintiff and he was running a business under the name and style M/s. Shakthi Polishing Machines. He expired in the year 2020 and thereafter the defendants continued to pay the rent of Rs.3,000.00 per month and thereafter the defendants stopped the payment. The defendants are jointly running a business in the schedule premises. The petition schedule premises is required by the plaintiff for his bonafide use and occupation and requested the defendants to handover the vacant possession many times, but they did not come forward to vacate the premises and hence issued a legal notice to quit, vacate and handover the possession and they have given an untenable reply and hence filed a suit seeking an order to direct the defendants to vacate and deliver the vacant possession and also direct the defendants to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.60,000.00 from November 2020 to June 2022 and grant such other relief.

(3.) The defendant No.3 filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. However, he contend that the defendants ' father took the premises on free of rent on receipt of lease amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs in the year 1993 and the father was required only to paid the electricity charges as and when due. The plaintiff was to refund the lease amount to Sri Nataraj at the time of vacating the premises and denied the contention that they are in occupation of the premises on monthly rent basis. The defendants have also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Sec. 151 of CPC praying this Court to dismiss the suit as not maintainable in view of Ss. 2(3)(e)(i) and 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ( 'the Act ' for short). In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to wherein it is contended that the rate of rent is Rs.3,000.00 per month and the plinth area is 77 sq.ft. and hence the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the same is coming under the jurisdiction of the Act and prayed this Court to dismiss the same.