2024:BHC-AS:31654 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 372 OF 2019 Britannia Industries Ltd. 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Kolkata, West Bengal 700017. } …Applicant -Versus-

Maya Sunil Alagh Residing at 12-C, II II Palazzo, Little Gibs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006. } …Respondent WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 373 OF 2019 Britannia Industries Ltd. 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Kolkata, West Bengal 700017. } …Applicant -Versus-

Maya Sunil Alagh Residing at 12-C, IL Palazzo, Little Gibs Road, Malabar Hill, NEETA SHAILESH Mumbai – 400 006. } …Respondent SAWANT Digitally signed by _______________________________________________________________

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.08.08

16:33:30 +0530 Mr. Navroz Seervai, senior advocate with Mr. Jay Zaveri and Ms. Tarleen Saini i/b Crawford Bayley & Co., for the Applicant.

Mr. Surel Shah, senior advocate with Ms. Pooja Tukrel i/by. Mr. Raj Baid, for the Respondent.

_______________________________________________________________

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Reserved On : 11 July 2024.

Pronounced On : 8 August 2024.

JUDGMENT:

A. INTRODUCTION

1) India’s biscuit giant Britania¹ is piqued by fixation of standard rent of a swanky apartment in IL Pallazo building located at upmarket area of Malabar Hill in Mumbai City at Rs. 805, when, according to Britania, the apartment can easily fetch monthly market rent of at least Rs. 6,00,000/-. Britania is engaged in a fierce battle over fixation of rent with its tenant Maya Alagh, [Maya Sunil Alagh, Respondent in both Revision Applications], a television and film actress and wife of Britania’s former Managing Director. Britania propounds a case, which possibly has not been put forth by any landlord in State of Maharashtra yet, that standard rent cannot be fixed by a Court in respect of premises let after 1 October 1987 and that therefore Britania is justified in demanding market rent in respect of the flat let to its tenant.

2) Whether standard rent can be fixed under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in respect of premises let after 1^st October 1987 is the issue that this Court is tasked upon to decide in these two Revision Applications. It is Revision Applicant’s contention that the Legislature has consciously omitted provision for fixation of standard rent in respect of premises let after 1^st October 1987 considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya³ and that therefore Small Causes Court does

1 Britannia Industries Ltd., Revision Applicant in both Revision Petitions.

3 Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and others Versus. State of Maharashtra and Anr (1998) 2

SCC 1

not have jurisdiction to entertain application for fixation of standard rent in respect of such premises. If the main issue is to be answered in the affirmative, the next issue is about manner of fixation of standard rent in respect of premises let during gap period of 1 October 1987 and 30 March 2000 i.e. the date before coming inti force of Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999.

B. THE CHALLENGE

3) These two Revision Applications are filed invoking revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the common judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court dated 21 February 2019 dismissing Revision Application No. 312 of 2017 filed by the Applicant-Landlord and partly allowing the Revision Application No. 62 of 2018 filed by the Respondent-Tenant. The Appellate Bench has set aside the direction Nos. (2) and (3) of the judgment and order of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in R.A.N. Application No. 75/SR of 2005 dated 3 October 2017. The Small Causes Court had allowed the R.A.N. Application No.75/SR of 2005 filed by Respondent by fixing standard rent of the premises at Rs. 10,880/- per month alongwith 4% annual increase and all the leviable charges including taxes and society charge on the application premises. The Appellate Bench has inste