SMITA JAIN Vs. N.A.PARAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in SC No. 1206/2012 on the file of the 18th Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 23.9.2013. the grounds urged by the petitioner is that the premises in occupation is a non residential commercial premises measuring 105 sq. ft., for the purpose of jurisdiction u/s. 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act and not under the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel referred sub -section (g) of Section 2(3) and submitted that since the plinth area is not exceeding 14 sq. meters, the case should have been filed under the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act and as against the same, the petitioner preferred suit under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner herein filed IA No. 3 under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC with a prayer to reject the suit on the ground of jurisdiction. The said IA came to be dismissed.

(2.) IN support of his submission, the learned counsel referred the judgments in Civil Appeal No. 5912/2002 between Mrs. M. Subbarao & Sons Vs., Yashodamma & Ors. And judgment in RFA No. 2065/2011 between Smt. Mallamma & others Vs., Sri Maruthi & Ors. And another judgment in RFA No. 1603/2005 between M/s. Karam Chand Thappar (CS) Ltd., Vs., M/s. Bux Ranka Developers (P) Ltd., & another and submitted to set aside the order passed by the court below.

(3.) I have heard both. Section 2(3) spells out that this very Act does not apply if it falls under clauses (a) to (h). The petitioner is paying rent of more than Rs. 3,500/ - which falls under the T P Act and the very premises is used for non residential purpose and the petitioner is running a dental clinic, the area of which whether exceeds 14 sq. meters or not it does not decide. Since the case of the respondent falls under clauses (e) & (g), the exception provided under clause (g) cannot be taken into account to defeat the purpose of exceptions. This Court in the judgment referred above in Sm. Anupama Ramesh vs., Shri Veerhand ( : ILR 2013 KAR 4696) held that "it cannot be defeated by relying upon the extent provided in clause (g) on the ground that the premises is used for commercial purpose and its plinth area does not exceed 14 sq. mtrs." Para -7 is extracted for convenience: