Back
ANIL S. KILOR
Perfect Auto – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Narsingdasji Agrawal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent for the parties. Brief facts of the present case are as under:
3. The respondent/ landlord is the owner of shop premises in question. The petitioner is a tenant and it was a partnership firm, however, in the year 1992, due to retirement of the partners, the petitioner firm was converted into the proprietorship concern.
4. The respondent/landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.290 of 2016 under Sec. 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1999") for fixation of the standard rent and permitted increase with the following prayer clause :
"A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to determine the standard rent/ fare rent of the suit shop premises at Rs.10, 000.00 per month excluding municipal taxes payable by defendant or as such other higher rate which may be made applicable in view of the commercial importance and commercial locality and suit premises being situated in the heart and middle of the city.
B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order the defendant to pay statutory interest at 15% per annum on the rent so determined from the date of this suit.
C) The Hon'ble C
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the authority to issue directions for deposit or payment of rent to the landlord is conditional to the suit being for recovery of rent, as ....
The availability of an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal can render a writ petition not maintainable.
The Maharashtra Rent Control Act does not allow fixation of standard rent for premises let after October 1, 1987; hence disputes in these instances are adjudicated based on Section 8's provisions all....
The court reaffirmed that a landlord's contractual rent rate is valid unless proven excessive, emphasizing the ineffectiveness of arbitrary rent reductions in commercial leases under the Bombay Rent ....
The court established that once eviction proceedings are dismissed, landlords can claim contractual rents despite interim rates being set.
A landlord cannot be denied the opportunity to be heard before the court fixes interim rent for a tenant where notice under S.12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act is not given.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Vivek Khedkar For the Respondent : Sumant Mishra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
