R.C. Lahoti, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The landlord-respondents initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant-appellants on the grounds available under Clauses (f), (h) and (p) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Old Act', for short). The trial Court directed eviction of the tenants on all the three grounds. In a revision preferred by the tenants, the learned Additional District Judge held the ground under Clause (h) not available to the landlords. However, the order of eviction was sustained upholding availability of grounds under Clauses (f) and (p). The tenants and the landlords both filed revision petitions before the High Court. By order dated 11-10-2000, the High Court disposed of both the revisions holding that sub-letting of tenancy premises by the tenants was made out and hence order for eviction was sustainable under Clause (f). The High Court did not deem it necessary to enter into the question of bona fide requirement. On a prayer made on behalf of the tenants, they were allowed a period of one and a half years for vacating the premises which period was to expire on 11th April, 2002.
(3.)With effect from 31-12-2001, the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter 'the New Act', for short) came into force. The suit premises are non-residential premises measuring 352 sq. ft. i.e. more than 14 sq. mts. Section 2 of the New Act speaks of application of the Act. Sub-section (3) thereof provides that nothing contained in this Act shall apply, amongst others, to any premises used for non-residential purpose but excluding premises having a plinth area of not exceeding fourteen square meters used for commercial purpose. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the plinth area of the suit premises exceeds 14 sq. mts. and the same are used for commercial purpose, and therefore, the New Delhi Act is not applicable to the premises.