AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 145 wordsS.R. Bannurmath, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondents.
In these petitions the Petitioners/tenants have challenged the correctness of the eviction orders passed by the trial Courts and the orders passed by the Revisional Courts. In both these cases it is seen that undisputedly the area of the premises which are admittedly non-residential exceeds 14 Sq. Mtrs. As such, as per the amended provision of Section 70 of the Karnataka Rent Act (Act No. 34 of 2001) and the pronouncements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases Mahendra Saree Emporium v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy AIR 2002 SCW 2663 and in the case of Sultaan Mohiuddin and Ors. v. Basheer Ahmed Shariff and Ors. AIR 2002 SCW 2682, the entire proceedings stand abated and nothing survives for adjudication on merits.
These petitions are disposed of according.