SULTAN MOHIYUDDIN AND ORS.versusBASHEER AHMED SHARIFF AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2002 INSC 260
- Decided
- 3 May 2002
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- R C LAHOTIB P SINGH
Holding
The eviction proceedings stand abated under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, and the appeal is disposed.
Summary
The landlord appealed a High Court decision after eviction proceedings were started under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. While the case was pending, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force, which exempts non‑residential premises larger than 14 square metres from its provisions. The tenant argued that, because the premises fell within this exemption under s.2(3)(g), the eviction proceedings should be abated under s.70(2)(c) of the 1999 Act. The Supreme Court found that the dimension and non‑residential character of the premises, and the applicability of the relevant provisions of the 1999 Act, were not contested by the landlord. Consequently, the Court held that the proceedings stood abated and there was nothing left to adjudicate on the merits. The appeal was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 applies to the non‑residential premises exceeding 14 square metres.
- Whether eviction proceedings initiated under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 stand abated under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Legislation cited
- Karnataka Rent Act, 1999s. 2(3)(g), s. 70(2)(c)
- Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961s. 21(1)(h), s. 21(1)(p)
Subjects
Judgment
I SULTAN MOHJYUDDIN AND ORS. A
v.
BASHEER AHMED SHARIFF AND ORS.
MAY 3,2002
.... {R.C. LAHOTl AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.j B
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999:
s. 2(3) (g) and 70(2)(c)-Abatement of proceedings-Non-residential
premises-Proceedings for eviction initiated u/s. 2 I (l )(h} and (p) of Karnalaka C
Rent Control Act, 1961-Area exceeds 14 square meters-Held, dimension
of the premises, its being non-residential and applicability of relevant
provisions of 1999 Act not disputed on behalf of landlord-appellant, the
proceedings stand abated-Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961-ss. 21 (l) (h)
~~ D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3325 of2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31. 7.200 l of the Karnataka High
Court in R.P. No. 562 of2000.
E
Naresh Kaushik, N.K. Roy, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Rajesh Singh and Lalita
Kaushik for the Appellants.
Kh. Nobin Singh, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar and Ankur S. Kulkarni
,. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
Leave granted.
The proceeding' for eviction were initiated under Section 21(l)(h) and
{p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, l 961. The landlord, having lost from G
the High Court, has filed this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
During the pendency of these proceedings, Karnataka Rent Act, 1999
has come into force with effect from 31.12.200 I. According to the counter filed
795 H
796 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.
A in this Court by the tenant-respondent, the area of the suit premises let out
for non-residential purpose exceeds 14 square metres and, therefore, the
premises are exempt from the provisions of the 1999 Act. It is the plea of the
tenant-respondent that Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 being not applicable to the
suit premises by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 2(3)(g), the
proceedings shall stand abated under Section 70(2)(c) of the 1999 Act. The
B dimension of the premises, its being non-residential and the applicability of
the relevant provisions of the 1999 Act referred to hereinabove is not disputed
by the learned counsel for the landlord-appellant. The proceedings, therefore,
stand abated. Nothing survives for adjudication on merits. The appeal be
treated as disposed of.
c RP. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.