The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the order of fixation of interim rent by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Amravati, and confirmation of the same by the District Judge. The Court observed that the prerequisite for issuance of direction for interim standard rent under Section 8(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is absent in the present case.
Brief Facts:
The respondent/ landlord is the owner of the shop premises in question. The petitioner is a tenant and it was a partnership firm. However, in the year 1992, due to the retirement of the partners, the petitioner firm was converted into a proprietorship concern. The respondent/landlord filed Regular Civil Suit under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for fixation of the standard rent.
The learned trial Court allowed the application by the impugned order dated 26/07/2018 and fixed the interim rent @ Rs.4,000/- per month. Feeling aggrieved by the same, a revision was preferred under Section 34(4) of the Act of 1999 by the petitioner. The revisional Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 15/11/2019 dismissed the revision and hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case, the suit is only for the fixation of standard rent and not for the recovery of rent. He pointed out that the application for the grant of interim standard rent was moved under Section 8(4)(a) of the Act of 1999 and in view of the prerequisite to attract the provisions of Section 8(4)(a) of the Act of 1999, the application itself was not maintainable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the authority to direct the tenant to deposit such amount of rent forthwith in the Court as the Court considers to be reasonable due to the landlord, or at the option of the tenant, directing to pay to the landlord such amount thereof as it may specify, can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit for recovery of the rent. The said power is conditional to the suit being for recovery of the rent, meaning thereby such powers cannot be exercised in any other suit except in a suit for recovery of rent between the landlord and the tenant.
Further, the Court remarked that the application moved by the respondent in the present matter is for the interim standard rent, filed in a suit for fixation of standard rent and permitted increase and not in a suit for recovery of the rent. Thus, the prerequisite for issuance of direction for interim standard rent under Section 8(4)(a) of the Act of 1999 is absent in the present case, and as such the order passed by the trial Court is without jurisdiction and passed on an untenable application.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Amravati suffers from lack of jurisdiction, and the judgment and order dated 15/11/2019 passed by the Revisional Court maintaining the order is also erroneous.
Case Title: M/s. Perfect Auto vs Santosh Narsingdasji Agrawal
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anil S. Kilor
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 1023 OF 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Y. J. Chandurkar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. J. B. Kasat
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments