Back
1990 Supreme(Bom) 370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
H. Suresh, J.
Sharad Construction Company .... Petitioners.
Versus
Ladkubai Narayan Gavand (Smt.) since deceased,
by her heirs and another .... Respondents.
Civil Revision Application No. 222 of 1986, decided on 13-9-1990.
Advocates appeared :
H.C. Tunara, for the petitioners.
K.J. Abhyankar with A.K. Abhyankar, for the respondents 1(1) to 1(4).
Headnote:Section 19 (4)-Fixation of standard rent-Deed of lease for land Provision in clause of original Deed-Rent payable at rate of Rs 600/-to pm.-Deed to be renewed on expiry of certain period with increased rate of rent of Rs. 600,-p.m.-Application by petitioner for tixation of standard rent-Rent fixed by Small Causes Court at Rs 600/-p m.-Petition against-Held-Rent could be any amount parties might agree at time of initial letting of property itself-No merit in petition.
If one looks at this agreement and the preamble thereto, it will how that the initial rent as provided under this deed of lease is as hereunder :-
"for a period of 55 years commencing from the 1st day of April 1981 Yielding and paying therefore curing the period of first six months rent at the rate of Rs. 675/-(Rupees six hundred and seventy-five only) per month and during, the next twenty years rent at the rate of Rs 7,500{-pm and during the next fifteen years rent at the rate of Rs. 9,000/-per month, to be paid without any deductions.”
This is the initial letting and the rates are as specified in this clause. The initial letting itself fixes the rent to be given from time to time. Initial letting is always on a bargain. The rent could be any amount the parties might agree it could on a monthly basis, or on a yearly basis or on a staggered basis at different rates at various stages of the duration of the lease. It could even be on a capitalised basis or on a premium. What is important is that all these terms must be found at the time of initial letting itself. However, after such fixation of rent under the deed of lease if the lessor demands an increase over. Next comes the question of limitation Section 120 of the MPT Act does not apply to writ petitioner and above what is mentioned in the deed, perhaps, it could be said that the same is violative of Section 7 of the Act. For example if under the deed of lease, where the lessor is entitled to claim Rs 600/-p. m. at a given point of time, demands a higher amount, then, in such an event it could be said that he is not entitled to claim such a higher rent, as the same is not permissible under Section 7 of the Act. But just because the initial letting itself provides for a phased increase of rent from time to time, it cannot be said that lessor is acting in contravention of Section 7 of the Act.
2. The present respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Ladkubai Narayan Gavand. The said deceased Ladkubai had granted certain lease-hold in respect of a certain plot of land, under a deed of lease dated 29th January, 1959, to one Khandubhai R. Patel who was carrying on business in the name and style of Sharad Construction Company as the sole proprietor thereof. The said lease was in respect of the land admeasuring about 30,000 Sq. yards or thereabout. Under the said deed of lease, the rent was fixed at Rs. 600/- per month for the land and at Rs. 75/- per month, in respect of certain chawls which were existing on the land, for the period of 40 years. The lease also provided that it could be renewed for a further period of 40 years or in perpetuity, but subject to such rent as shall be fixed and may be agreed upon by and between the parties as provided under the deed of lease.
3. It appears that the said Khandubhai R. Patel admitted certain other persons as partners under a deed of partnership dated 22nd January, 1980. It further appears that certain partners, who had initially joined, also retired from the said firm. Thereafter certain disputes arose between the lessor and the lessees and finally it resulted in a separate deed of lease dated 8th December, 1981, whereby the earlier deed of lease came to an end and the parties thereto surrendered their rights for the unexpired term of the said lease dated 19th January, 1959 and thereafter, the lessor, granted unto the lessees a fresh lease of the same land for a period of 55 years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said document.
4. The document shows that the rent for a period of six months commencing from 1-4-1981 was Rs. 675/- per month. Thereafter, for the next 19 years and six months, the rent has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month and for the next 20 years, the rent is at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month and for the next 15 years, the rent is fixed at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per month.
5. The lessees were, of course, builders and the object of the lease was to utilise the land for the purpose of erection of buildings and sell the same on ownership basis to various intending flat purchasers and finally to form either joint stock companies or co-operative societies and to have the land demised unto them.
6. It appears that as per the said agreement, the petitioners herein initially deposited a sum of Rs. 72,000/-. He did not pay anything thereafter. But, instead, the petitioners filed a standard rent application, being R.A.N. Application No. 277/SR of 1982 in the Court of Small Causes for fixation of standard rent. That was on or about 28th May, 1982. Thereafter, the Lessors served a Notice dated 25th January, 1984 purporting to be a notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and demanding Rs. 1,02,000/- as arrears of rent upto 31st December, 1983 at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month as per the said deed of lease. On 27th February, 1984, that is to say, within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice, the petitioners filed an application for fixation of interim standard rent under section 11, sub-section (4) of the Bombay Rent Act. The Trial Judge, by an order dated 17th February, 1986, fixed the interim standard rent at Rs. 6,000/- per month and gave directions to the petitioners to pay the arrears by a certain date.
7. It is against this order, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Application. Mr. Tunara, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the standard rent could be the rent at which the premises were first let out as provided under section 5, sub-section 10, sub-clauses (b) (i) or (b)(iii) of the Bombay Rent Act. He stated that initially there was a deed of lease in the year 1959
