Judgment :-

H.L. GOKHALE, J.

1. This appeal, by Special leave raises a question as to whether the provisions for fixation of standard rent, and provisions prescribing other obligations for the landlord such as maintenance of essential services under the concerned Rent Control Act viz. Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as in the present case (hereinafter referred to as the MRC Act), are applicable in respect of public premises owned by a corporation such as the first respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C in short) which is otherwise covered by the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Public Premises Act).

Short facts leading to this appeal are as follows -

2. The appellant is a firm of advocates and Solicitors, and is a tenant in possession of 5th floor of a seven storey building, situated at 269 D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai owned by the first Respondent, L.I.C. L.I.C. is a statutory corporation constituted under the , 1956. The area under occupation of the appellant is 1289.16 sq. feet (equivalent to 113 sq. metres). The petitioner is a tenant of these premises since 1.8.1988 under an agreement of lease which has been extended from time to time. It is relevant to note that there are no proceedings of eviction filed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellant. The second respondent is the Regional Manager (estates) of L.I.C.

3. The respondent No. 2 revised the monthly rent of these premises suddenly by his letter of 14.7.2004 from Rs.6,891/- to Rs.39,069/-, including Municipal taxes and miscellaneous charges. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court being Writ Petition No. 2266 of 2004 to challenge the increasing of rent as arbitrary. The respondents made a statement in the High Court that if the petitioner abides by Clause IV(e) of the lease agreement between the parties and pays increased rent as provided therein, the respondents will not enforce the increase in the rent that was proposed through letter dated 14.7.2001. Thereupon, the writ petition was withdrawn. Subsequently, the respondents sent a reduced bill of Rs.9,144/- per month which included basic rent of Rs.6,181/- plus municipal taxes and water charges of Rs.355/-and misc. charges of Rs.100/-. We place the above Clause IV(e) on record. It reads as follows:-

“(e)The Lessor doth hereby convenant with the Lessee that upon the Lessee paying the rent hereby reserved regularly and observing and performing all the convenants and conditions herein contained, the Lessor shall on Lessee‘s request extend the period of the lease on the same terms and conditions not exceeding five years from the expiration of the terms hereby granted subject however that there will be an escalation/increase in the rent hereby reserved by 35% of the rate mentioned hereinabove.”

4. It so transpired that the lift of the building (wherein these premises are situated) was not working properly, and hence, sometime in 2007, the appellant, alongwith two other tenants, filed an application bearing R.E.S. Application No. 48/Res of 2007 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai for restoration of the lift services under Section 29 of the MRC Act. A single Judge of that Court who heard an Interim application therein, directed the respondents by his order dated 3.10.2007 to repair the lift. A revision petition bearing Revision Application No. 308 of 2007 was filed by the respondents to challenge that order. The submission of the respondents, that the MRC Act was not applicable, was turned down by a Division Bench of that Court, which dismissed that petition by its order dated 11.1.2008 In the meanwhile, in April, 2007 the respondents further decreased the rent from Rs.9,144/- to Rs.6,891/- per month.

5. The monthly rent for the premises, however continued to be uncertain. The respondents increased the rent for the premises once again in March, 2008 to Rs.8,689/-. In April, 2008 they demanded rent of Rs.25,063