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 per Section 8(4)(a) of the Act of 1999 and Section 11(4) of the Act of 1947.

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 Section 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/- 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 ofthe 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 ofthis suit.

C) The Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to grant any other suitable reliefthat may be deemed fit.

D) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff as against the defendant."

5. The petitioner filed its written statement opposing the claim.

6. The respondent filed application under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1999 for interim rent till decision of the suit, to which the reply was filed by the petitioner.

7. The learned trial Court allowed the application Exh.24 by the impugned order dated 26/07/2018 and fixed the interim rent @ Rs.4,000/- per month.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the same, 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 the same is subject matter of the present petition.

9. The order of fixation of interim rent by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Amravati and confirmation of the same by the District Judge-1, Amravati in revision petition is under challenge on the ground that under Section 8(4)(a) of the Act of 1999 only in case of suit for recovery of rent the Court can make such order directing to pay interim standard rent and not in any other suit.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, in the present case, the suit is only for fixation of standard rent and not for the recovery of rent. It is pointed out that the application for 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.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jamnadas Motilal Vanwari ..vs.. Ishwaribai Tejandas Alwani, reported in 1981 Mh.L.J. 701(FB).

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

13. As the controversy involved is about applicability of Section 8(4)(a) of the Act of 1999 to the suits other than the suit for recovery of rent, at this stage, it is appropriate to refer to Section 8(4)(a), which reads thus:

"8. Court may fix standard rent and permitted increases in certain cases. -

(1)-

(2)-

(3)-

(4) (a) Where at any stage of a suit for recovery of rent, whether with or without a claim for possession, of the premises, the court is satisfied that the rent is excessive and standard rent should be fixed, the court may, and in any other case, if it appears to the court that it is just and proper to make such an order, the court may make an order directing the tenant to deposit in court forthwith such amount ofthe rent as the court considers to be reasonable due to the landlord, or at the option of the tenant, an