2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2019
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Manish Pitale, J
Rajesh s/o Himmatlal Dawda – Appellant
Versus
Naresh s/o Gyarsilal Agrawal – Respondent
Writ Petition No.4410/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri M.R. Joharapurkar
For the Respondents: Shri N.G. Jetha
The writ petition was dismissed due to alternative remedies available to the petitioner under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, making the appeal to District Court maintainable.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 8 and 34 - Interim fair rent fixation - Application filed by landlord for interim rent was partly allowed, directing tenant to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month - The maintainability of the writ petition was challenged - Court held that appeal lies to District Court given the availability of efficacious remedy against the Small Causes Court order. (Paras 3, 14)
(B) Legal Procedure - The issue of maintainability was centered around the interpretation of Sections 8 and 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the provisions of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 - The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument regarding appeal prohibition under Section 8(5) - Analysis led to the conclusion that the order being subject to appeal makes the writ petition not maintainable. (Paras 13, 14)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenant ordered to pay interim rent. (Para 3) |
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 24/02/2021, passed by the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, on an application filed on behalf of the respondent (landlord) for fixation of interim fair/standard rent of the tenanted premises. The said application has been partly allowed and the petitioner (tenant) has been directed to pay interim fair/standard rent of the suit plot at Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application.
4. The respondent filed an application under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (in short "Act of 1999") for fixation of fair/standard rent. During the pendency of the said application, the respondent filed the aforesaid application for fixation of interim fair/standard rent for the tenanted premises. The application stood partly allowed, as noted above.
5 The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed the present writ petition, wherein notice was issued for final disposal and effect of the impugned order was stayed, subject to the petitioner making payment of Rs.7,500/- per month to the respondent with effect from the date of the impugned order.
6 When this writ petition was taken up for final disposal, a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition was raised on behalf of the respondent.
7 Shri Narendra Jetha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent invited attention of this Court to the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1999, particularly Sections 8 and 34 thereof, to claim that an appeal would lie before the District Judge against the impugned order. It was submitted that the aforesaid provisions read with Sections 26 and 26-A of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, would show that the appeal would certainly lie before the District Court and in view of the alternative efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, the present writ petition deserved to be dismissed only on that short ground. Attention of this Court was invited to the judgment of this Court in the case of Pundalik Haribhau Chandekar Vs. Jagdish Dadaji Bind reported in 2010 (1) BOM CR 144.
8 On the other hand, Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no substance in the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It was submitted that the respondent had initiated proceedings under section 8 of the Act of 1999 and that there was a clear prohibition under Sub- section 5 thereof regarding filing of an appeal. It was further submitted that a proper application of Section 34 of the aforesaid Act would show that an appeal would not lie in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9 This Court has perused the impugned order, as also the material placed on record. There can be no dispute about the fact that the respondent in the present case has filed the application for fixation of fair/standard rent under Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1999. The application at Exhibit 5 sought fixation of interim fair/standard rent and the said application was partly allowed. A perusal of Sub-Section (5) and Section 8 of the Act of 1999, would show that no appeal can lie against an order of the Court under Sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 8 . In the present case, the application for fixing interim fair/standard rent is not traceable to Sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 8 of the Act of 1999 and therefore, Sub-Section (5) thereof will not applicable.
10 At the same time, a perusal of Section 34 of the Act of 1999, shows that in the facts and circumstances of the present case Sub- Section (1)(b) thereof would apply, which provides for an appeal to the District Court against an order passed by a Judge of the Court of Small Causes est