TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenance 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 Life Insurance Corporation Act, 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 1st August, 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. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther decreased the rent from ₹ 9144/- to ₹ 6891/- 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 ₹ 8689/-. In April, 2008 they demanded rent of ₹ 25,063/- on the basis that the rateable value of the building had been raised by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation from the month of April, 2006 onwards from ₹ 17,895/- to ₹ 1,21,805/-. The appellant was called upon to pay the arrears of rent also from April 2006 amounting to ₹ 8,89,503/-. 6. The appellant therefore asked for the break up of the rent bill by their letter dated 2.4.2008. Since no reply was received, appellant filed an Application (registered as RAN application No.24/SR/08) under Section 8 (3) of the MRC Act in the Court of Small Causes for fixation of standard rent, and also filed an application for fixing interim rent. Respondents in their turn challenged the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to entertain the proceeding, and contended that the suit premises were public premises covered under the Public Premises Act, and the MRC Act did not apply to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices in the Public Premises Act, and since the MRC Act is a subsequent Act, the provisions of the MRC Act will have to be held as available to the tenants for these purposes. Mr. Hansaria, did not dispute that the premises occupied by the appellant are public premises within the definition of the concept of public premises under the Public Premises Act. He did not also dispute that in regard to matters relating to eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, the Public Premises Act will apply to applications by respondents against appellant. He however, contended that for the purpose of fixation of standard rent of the premises of the appellant, the MRC Act will apply. 9. As against this, the submission of Mr. H.P. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General, was that the concept of standard rent was foreign to the Public Premises Act, and should not be permitted to be applied to the public premises by permitting applications under the MRC Act for that purpose, particularly when the Parliament has not made any provision in this behalf in the Public Premises Act. That apart, according to the respondents they were seeking to recover the permitted increases on account of increase in the rata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the T.P. Act. 11. Generally, the terms of the agreement between the landlord and the tenant would require the landlord to maintain the premises in tenantable condition, and he will get the premises repaired when necessary. The tenant will be required to vacate the premises at the end of the period of lease. During the lease period, it will be the responsibility of the tenant to pay the rent regularly and `keep the premises in good condition subject only to changes caused by reasonable wear and tear or irresistible force' and `when such defect has been caused by any act or default on the part of the lessee, his servants or agents, he is bound to make it good within three months after such notice has been given or left' (See Section 108 (m) of T.P. Act. If the tenant commits breaches of the lease agreement by not paying the rent regularly or remaining in arrears thereof, or causing damage to the premises, the landlord may terminate the lease earlier, even before the expiry of the agreed term as per the provisions concerning the termination provided in the agreement and the Transfer of Property Act. If the tenant does not vacate the premises after the termination of lease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s without landlord's permission, sub-letting the premises and causing nuisance to the neighbours etc. A reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord was also provided as a ground for eviction. If the landlord was charging rent excessively, a right was given to the tenant to have the standard rent fixed under Section 11 of that act. A further right was given to the tenant to approach the Court under Section 24 of that act for maintenance and restoration of essential services in case the landlord neglected the same. 14. The first respondent L.I.C owns a large number of properties in the city of Mumbai and elsewhere. Earlier, the relationship between L.I.C as the landlord and its tenants was governed under the Bombay Rent Act 1947. The question is as to what change has been brought about by the Public Premises Act 1971, into this relationship? The Public Premises Act 1971, provides only for eviction of unauthorized occupants, and recovery of arrears of rent from the tenant. Can it therefore be said that the other provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, ceased to apply to the tenancies which were earlier covered thereunder? Or would it be proper to say that only the aspect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... special provisions for recovery of possession in certain cases such as where the premises are owned by members of Armed Forces, Scientists etc, Chapter (VI) contains the provisions regarding sub-tenancies and other matters concerning tenancies, Chapter (VII) contains provisions regarding jurisdiction of the Courts, suits, appeals, practice and procedure, Chapter (VIII) contains provisions for the summary disposal of certain applications and Chapter (IX) contains the miscellaneous provisions. 18. As stated earlier, the preamble of MRC Act states that it is an Act relating to five subjects, namely (i) control of rent, (ii) repairs of certain premises, (iii) eviction, (iv) encouraging the construction of new houses by assuring fair return of investment by the landlord, and (v) matters connected with the purposes mentioned above. Section 2 of the act gives the applicability of the act. Sub- section (1) thereof lays down that in the first instance, the act applies to premises let for the purposes of residence, education, business, trade or storage, and in the areas specified in Schedule I and Schedule II of the Act. Schedule I and II mention the cities and towns to which this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India Act, 1934. (2) The State Government may direct that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall, subject to such conditions and terms as it may specify, not apply- (i) to premises used for public purposes of a charitable nature or to any class of premises used for such purposes; (ii) to premises held by a public trust for a religious or charitable purpose and let at a nominal or concessional rent; (iii) to premises held by a public trust for a religious or charitable purpose and administered by a local authority; or (iv) to premises belonging to or vested in an university established by any law for the time being in force Provided that, before issuing any direction under this sub-section, the State Government shall ensure that the tenancy rights of the existing tenants are not adversely affected. (3) The expression premises belonging to the Government or a local authority' in sub-section (1) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said sub-section or in any judgment, decree or order of a court, nor include a building erected on any land held by any person from the Government or a local authority under an agreement, lease, licence or othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the remedy to the tenant against the same. Section 33 of the Act gives the jurisdiction of Courts in that behalf. In Mumbai, the jurisdiction is with the Court of Small Causes. 22. Sections 2(14), 8 and 29 are relevant for our purpose. They read as follows:- 2 (14) standard rent , in relation to any premises means.- (a) where the standard rent is fixed by the Court or, as the case may be, the Controller under the Bombay Rent Restriction Act 1939, or the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944 or the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act , 1947, or the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Retnt Control Order, 1949 issued under the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, or the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, such rent plus an increase of 5 per cent, in the rent so fixed ; or (b) where the standard rent or fair rent is not so fixed, then subject to the provisions of sections 6 and 8. - (i) the rent at which the premises were let on the Ist day of October 1987; or (ii) where the premises were not let on the Ist day of October 1987, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim 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 of the rent as the court considers to be reasonable due to the landlord, or at the option of the tenant, an order directing him to pay to the landlord such amount thereof as the court may specify. (b) The court may further make an order directing the tenant to deposit in court periodically such amount as it considers proper as interim standard rent, or at the option of the tenant, an order to pay to the landlord, such amount thereof as the court may specify, during the pendency of the suit; (c) The court may also direct that if the tenant fails to comply with any order made as aforesaid, within such time as may be allowed by it, he shall not be entitled to appear in or defend the suit except with leave of the court, which leave may be granted subject to such terms and conditions as the court may specify. (5) No appeal shall lie from any order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on stair-cases, lifts and conservancy or sanitary service; (b) withholding any essential supply or service shall include acts or omissions attributable to the landlord on account of which the essential supply or services is cut-off by the municipal authority or any other competent authority. (7) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (6) or any other law for the time being in force, where the tenant, - (a) who has been in enjoyment of any essential supply or service and the landlord has withheld the same, or (b) who desires to have, at his own cost, any other essential supply or service for the premises in his occupation, the tenant may apply to the Municipal or any other authority authorized in this behalf, for the permission or for supply of the essential service and it shall be lawful for that authority to grant permission for, supply of such essential supply or service applied for without insisting on production of a No Objection Certificate from the landlord by such tenant. The Public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971- 23. Now, when we turn to the Public Premises Act, the preamble of the Act states that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard as and when re-named as the Bhakra-Beas Management Board under sub- section (6 of section 80 of that Act; (vii) any State Government or the Government of any Union Territory situated in the National Capital Territory of Delhi or in any other Union Territory; (viii) any Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924); and 3) in relation to the [National Capital Territory of Delhi]- (i) any premises belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any Municipal Committee or notified area committee; (ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Authority, whether such premises are in the possession of, or leased out by, the said Authority; and (iii) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of any State Government or the Government of any Union Territory;] 2(f) rent , in relation to any public premises, means the consideration payable periodically for the authorized occupation of the premises, and includes,- (i) any charge for electricity, water or any other services in connection with the occupation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. (2) If any person refused or fails to comply with the order of eviction [on or before, the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of its publication under sub-section(1) whichever is later,] the estate officer or any other officer duly authorized by the estate officer in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. Section 7 - Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises (1) Where any person, is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such installments as may be specified in the order. (2) Where any person is, or has at anytime been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeding for eviction of a tenant, Small Causes Court can entertain it; (iii) The respondent, LIC has framed guidelines for charging rent. These guidelines have a statutory force under Section 21 of the LIC Act. They require LIC to charge reasonable rent, and therefore the Bombay High Court has in Writ Petition No.2436 of 2003 (Persis Kothawala Versus LIC) held that these guidelines are binding on LIC. On that basis, the standard rent application would be maintainable. (iv) Section 3 of the MRC Act does not exempt LIC and hence the provisions of MRC Act are applicable to its premises. (v) Merely because the premises were covered under the Public Premises Act, the jurisdiction to entertain the Standard Rent Application under the MRC Act was not ousted. There was no conflict between the two Acts for that purpose. The impugned judgment of the High Court and its reliance on the constitution bench judgment in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. - 26. The learned Single Judge who decided the petition principally relied upon the judgment of a constitution bench of this Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Another Versus Punjab National Bank and Others [1990 (4) SCC 406], in support of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of a right to claim a debt which was otherwise time barred. The Learned Judge has, however, tried to get over this position by relying upon Section 15 of the Public Premises Act as follows:- Apart from that, in view of the overriding effect of the said Act of 1971, an occupant of the public premises cannot claim protection under the Rent Control Legislation in as much as section 15 of the said Act of 1971 ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts under the Rent Control Legislation to deal with the matter of recovery of rent in respect of public premises. Again, it is difficult to say that this approach is a correct one. That is because the High Court was not concerned with the recovery of arrears of rent by a public authority, an action against which would get ousted in view the provision of section 15 of the Public Premises Act, as also one against eviction. The question is whether a tenant's application for fixation of Standard Rent would get ousted. The respondents are claiming that what they are charging are permissible increases, whereas the appellant contends that what is charged is in excess of what should be the Standard Rent, and for that purpose it has filed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forum for adjudication of disputes between landlords and tenants and the procedure which has to be followed in such proceedings. The Rent Control Act can, therefore, be said to be a special statute regulating the relationship of landlord and tenant in the Union Territory of Delhi. (ii) The Public Premises Act makes provision for a speedy machinery to secure eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises. As opposed to the general law which provides for filing of a regular suit for recovery of possession of property in a competent court and for trial of such a suit in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Public Premises Act confers the power to pass an order of eviction of an unauthorized occupant in a public premises on a designated officer and prescribes the procedure to be followed by the said officer before passing such an order. (iii) Therefore, the Public Premises Act is also a special statute relating to eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. In other words, both the enactments, namely, the Rent Control Act and the Public Premises Act, are special statutes in relation to the matters dealt with therein. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the Slum Clearance Authority. It is to obviate such difficulty that the amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act had been brought in. In that context it was observed in para 20 as follows:- 20. ........When two or more laws operate in the same field and each contains a non-obstante clause stating that its provisions will override those of any other law, stimulating and incisive problems of interpretation arise. Since statutory interpretation has no conventional protocol, cases of such conflict have to be decided in reference to the object and purpose of the laws under consideration...... (emphasis supplied) Therefore, the Court concluded in para 23 as follows:- 23. ......Bearing in mind the language of the two laws, their object and purpose, and the fact that one of them is later in point of time and was enacted with the knowledge of the non-obstante clauses in the earlier law, we have come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 14A and Chapter IIIA of the Rent Control Act must prevail over those contained in Sections 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance Act. 30. Accordingly, in the context of the conflict between the two Acts, this Court held in Ashoka Marketi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of controversy in our case is with respect to the fixation of standard rent, which is not covered under the provision in the Public Premises Act. On the other hand the same is very much covered under the MRC Act. The overriding effect given to Public Premises Act cannot mean overriding with reference to a matter which was not dealt with by that Act, since the Public Premises Act did not claim to cover the subject other than eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and recovery of arrears of rent. Therefore, it was submitted that the application for fixation of standard rent will be very much maintainable under the provisions of the MRC Act. Public Premises Act vis-`-vis the Bombay Rent Act and the MRC Act on the issue of eviction of unauthorised occupants from Public Premises- 32. Before we deal with the rival submissions on the maintainability of the standard rent application, we may note that with respect to the aspect of eviction of unauthorised occupants from the public premises, it is now well settled that the Public Premises Act will apply and not the Bombay Rent Act or the subsequent MRC Act. (i) In Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. Anr. vs. Natio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in paragraph 8 and 9 are relevant for our purpose which read as follows:- 8. ...... So far as the Premises Act is concerned it operates in a very limited field in that it applies only to a limited nature of premises belonging only to particular sets of individuals, a particular set of juristic persons like companies, corporations or the Central Government. Thus, the Premises Act has a very limited application. Secondly, the object of the Premises Act is to provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises by a summary procedure so that the premises may be available to the authorities mentioned in the Premises Act which constitute a class by themselves. ....... 9. Thus, it would appear that both the scope and the object of the Premises Act is quite different from that of the Rent Act. The Rent Act is of much wider application than the Premises Act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in Section 2 of the Premises Act. The object of the Rent Act is to afford special protection to all the tenants or private landlords or landlords who are neither a corporation nor government or corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver the premises are required bonafide and reasonably by the public authority. There was no such special procedure for the public bodies until the Public Premises Act was enacted. When it comes to the requirement of the Government or the Public Corporation, now the public body will be taking steps under the Public Premises Act. It is, however, relevant to note as held in this judgment that the Public Premises Act has a very limited application as against the Rent Act which affords a special protection to the tenants by fixing standard rent and requiring the landlord to maintain the essential services. It was, therefore, submitted that the standard rent application under the Rent Act would remain available to the tenant even if the premises are otherwise covered under the Public Premises Act for the purposes of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent from the unauthorised occupants. The question of Repugnancy - 34. The question is as to whether the provision for fixation of standard rent and the provision requiring landlord to maintain the essential services under the MRC Act, which is a subsequent Act passed by the State Legislature are in any way repugnant to the Public Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases when both the legislation occupy the same field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in List III and where a direct conflict is seen between the two. The Principles laid down by a bench of 3 Judges in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar reported in [1983 (4) SCC 45] were reiterated by a Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors. reported in [2004 (10) SCC 201]. Para 31 (5) thereof is instructive for our purpose and it reads as follows:- 31 (5) Where the legislative competence of the legislature of any State is questioned on the ground that it encroaches upon the legislative competence of Parliament to enact a law, the question one has to ask is whether the legislation relates to any of the entries in List I or III. If it does, no further question need be asked and Parliament's legislative competence must be upheld. Where there are three lists containing a large number of entries, there is bound to be some overlapping among them. In such a situation the doctrine of pith and substance has to be applied to determine as to which entry does a given piece of legislation relate. Once it is so determin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rule of repugnancy in paragraph 35 which are as follows:- 35. On a careful consideration, therefore, of the authorities referred to above, the following propositions emerge: 1. That in order to decide the question of repugnancy it must be shown that the two enactments contain inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions, so that they cannot stand together or operate in the same field. 2. That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes. 3. That where the two statutes occupy a particular field, but there is room or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without coming into collision with each other, no repugnancy results. 4. That where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and separate offences, no question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to operate in the same field. Consequently the Court held that there was no conflict amongst the legislations concerned. 38. The question with respect to conflict between two such legislations came up before a Bench of three Judges in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma and Ors. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act could be insisted for establishments governed under the Shops and Establishments Act. This Court held that those provisions will be applicable and there was no conflict between the provisions of the two Acts. Section 25-F of the Central Act provided for the conditions precedent for retrenchment, and the non- compliance therewith made the order of retrenchment fatal. Section 41 (1) and (3) of the A.P. Act provided for the authorities to settle the disputes arising out of retrenchment. Section 25 J (2) of the I.D. Act reads as follows:- 25-J.Effect of laws inconsistent with this chapter.-(1)....... (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any other law for the time being in force in any State insofar as that law provides for the settlement of industrial disputes, but the rights and liabilities of employers and workmen insofar as they relate to lay off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The court noted in para 8 that the State Act does not contain any express provision makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. In Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra Ors. [2010 (5) SCC 246], the question was with respect to the conflict between the MCOC Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967. In both matters this Court took the view that mere difference in the two Acts is not sufficient, and an incidental encroachment is irrelevant. This Court held that there was no conflict in both the cases. Fixation of Standard Rent in the context of exemptions from the Rent Control Laws - The question of remedy 42. Whatever be the object of granting exemption, where the object is to see that the properties of the State or semi-state bodies should not suffer by the rigours of the Rent Control Laws or the possession of the public premises be recovered expeditiously, the Courts have expressed their views that these authorities being public bodies should so behave as not to act contrary to the policies laid down in the Rent Control Laws namely not to increase the rent unreasonably or excessively, nor to evict their tenant unreasonably or arbitrarily, save and except in public interest. (J.H. Dalal in his Commentary on the Bombay Rent Act, Fifth Edition, Page 65). 43. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment whose object was to protect the tenants and prevent rent being increased and prevent people being ejected, would not itself when it was the landlord do those very things which it sought to prohibit its people from doing, and therefore the underlying assumption of this exemption is that Government would not increase rents and would not eject tenants unless it was absolutely necessary in public interest and unless a particular building was required for a public purpose. 44. In another case Baburao Shantaram More Vs. The Bombay Housing Board reported in [AIR 1954 SC 153] which came up before a Constitution Bench of this Court, the question was with respect to the eviction of a tenant of the then Bombay Housing Board, constituted under the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948. A decree for eviction had been passed against the tenant which had been upheld by the High Court. The appeal therefrom was dismissed by this Court. While upholding the exemption of the Bombay Housing Board under section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act, the Court held that the classification was based on an intelligible differentia, and held that the tenant or the local authority or the board were not in need of suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or power by public authorities as the respondent, in respect of dealing with tenants in respect of which they have been treated separately and distinctly from other landlords on the assumption that they would not act as private landlords, must be judged by that standard. If a governmental policy or action even in contractual matters fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. See the observations of this Court in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy and R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (SCC pp. 505-06 : SCR p. 1034). (emphasis supplied) yardstick for Standard Rent:- 46. Relying upon the above judgments Mr. Hansaria submitted that the Public authorities cannot raise rent arbitrarily. In this behalf he referred to the guidelines framed by the Central Government to prevent arbitrary use of the power under this Act. These guidelines are issued by the Central Government under resolution dated 30.5.2002 and published in the Government of India Gazette dated 8.6.2002. Guidelines No. 2 (i) and 2 (iii) are relevant for our purposes. He relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Persis Kothawala vs. LIC reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Rent Control Act in dealing with genuine legal tenants. (iv) It is necessary to give no room for allegations that evictions were selectively resorted to for the purpose of securing and unwarranted increase in rent, or that a change in tenancy was permitted in order to benefit particular individuals or institutions. In order to avoid such imputations or abuse of discretionary powers, the release of premises or change of tenancy should be decided at the level of Board of Directors of Public Sector Undertakings. (v) All the Public Undertakings should immediately review all pending cases before the Estate Officer or Courts with reference to these guidelines, and withdraw eviction proceedings against genuine tenants on ground otherwise than as provided under these guidelines. The provisions under the P.P. (E) Act, 1971 should be used henceforth only in accordance with these guidelines. 3. These orders take immediate effect. VINEETA RAI Additional Secy. 47. Mr. Hansaria pointed that when the MRC Act was being framed, LIC specifically represented to Maharashtra State Law Commission that it be exempted from the coverage of the proposed law. This is recorded in Twelt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovered from the tenant, there is a power to recover the same even from the heirs and legal representatives under Section 13 of the Act, and if the rent or damages are not paid, they can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 14 and an unlawful occupant can be prosecuted under Section 11 of the Act. This being the position the idea of standard rent was foreign to the Public Premises Act. 51. A reference was made to the rules which are framed under the Act alongwith the relevant forms framed thereunder. Thus, Form D contains the format for the notice under Section 7 (3) read with Sub-section (1) thereof which is to be issued by the Estate Officer for calling the tenant for an enquiry into the arrears of rent. Form F is the format of the notice for enquiry for determining the damages for unauthorized occupation to be assessed under Section 7 (3) read with Sub-section (2) thereof. It was, therefore, submitted that necessary mechanism is provided under the Act and the Rules. 52. Thereafter it was pointed out that all that the respondents had done was to pass on the amount of property tax demanded by the Municipal Corporation to the appellant. It was submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1950 and relying upon the dicta of the constitution bench in Dhulabhai Vs. State of M.P. reported [AIR 1969 SC 78], this Court had held that a suit for declaration as to the succession to a public trust was not maintainable, since the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts Act had exclusive jurisdiction. A similar approach was suggested in the present case. 56. It was then submitted that the MRC Act excludes some tenants from the protection of the rent Act such as the Banks, Insurance Companies and Multi National Companies being rich tenants. In the same way, under the Public Premises Act, fixing of standard rent has been excluded, and that should be held to be permissible. If a tenant is aggrieved by the rent fixed, his remedy will be to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution, but one cannot permit part of the proceedings regarding arrears of rent before the Court of the Estate Officer, and another part concerning fixation of standard rent before the Rent Controller. 57. With respect to the guidelines framed by the Central Government, it was submitted by Mr. Rawal that non-statutory guidelines are to be treated as advisory in character and present guidelines need n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of the scarcity of accommodation following the Second World War, special protection was made available to the tenants against unjustified increases in rent and ejectment from the tenancies. This protection was reflected in the provisions of various Rent Control Acts such as the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 which governed the premises of the appellant for all purposes prior to the coming into force of the Public Premises Act, 1971. When the Public Premises Act was enforced, it covered the subject of eviction of unauthorised occupants of the public premises and recovery of arrears of rent from them, and those subjects no longer remained covered under the Bombay Rent Act. The question is whether the remedies for fixation of Standard Rent and getting the essential services restored when necessary, no longer remained available to the tenants like the appellant merely because the Public Premises Act came to be applied. And secondly, after the MRC Act came into force from 31st March, 2000 whether these remedies once again came to be reinforced. 60. We have noted the observations from the leading judgment of the Constitution Bench in Ashoka Marketing. In that matter this Court was concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovery of arrears of rent are alone covered under the Public Premises Act. The subject of fixation of rent is different and independent from eviction as held by the division bench of the Karnataka High in Bharath Gold Mines. That being the position, there is no conflict between the MRC Act and the Public Premises Act when it comes to the provisions in the MRC Act with respect to fixation of Standard Rent and requiring the landlord to maintain the essential services and supplies. Therefore, the provisions of MRC Act in that behalf cannot in any way be said to be repugnant to those under the Public Premises Act. The presumption is in favour of constitutionality, and the Court is not expected to strike down a provision unless the conflict is a real one. In the present matter there is no such real conflict. On ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts- 63. We may next deal with the contention of the respondents that the exclusionary clauses are to be read strictly. In the case of Church of North India (supra), relied upon by the respondents, this Court was concerned with a suit for declaration as to the succession to a particular trust governed under the Bombay Public Tru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For these purposes no remedy is provided under the Public Premises Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for these remedies cannot be held to be ousted. 64. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that if the submission of the appellant is accepted it will mean permitting proceedings before the Court of Estate Officer for recovery of arrears of rent, and before the Rent Controller for fixation of standard rent, and the same is not desirable. In our view, this by itself can be no reason to hold the Standard Rent Application to be not maintainable before the Court of Small Causes. We have referred to the judgment in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Shri Kishan Bhageria (supra). In that ease the establishment wherein the respondent/workman was employed was covered under the Rajasthan Shops and Establishment Act, 1958. It was also covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Dismissal of his application for reinstatement under Section 28A of the Rajasthan Act on the ground of limitation was held as not preventing a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The observation of this Court at the end of para 12 of that judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Although the question of maintainability of the Standard Rent Applications concerning the public premises is only coming up now before this Court, we have referred to the views of Courts when different facets of this issue came up for consideration from time to time. The exemption from the Bombay Rent Act to the government premises was upheld in Rampratap Jaidayal (supra), on the basis of the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactment which was also on the footing that Legislature correctly appreciates the needs of its own people. Chief Justice Chagla has clearly observed in that matter that the Legislature was not in any sense exempting the Government from the operation of the Act in order to permit the Government to do the very thing which the Legislature was prohibiting the landlords from doing, viz. not to increase rents and not to eject tenants unless it was absolutely necessary in the public interest. S.R. Das, J. (as he then was) has also observed similarly in Baburao Shantaram More (supra) that it was not expected that the Government or the Local Authority would be actuated by any profit making motive so as to unduly enhance the rents or eject the te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne grounds under the Rent Control Act for resuming possession. Thus, these guidelines specifically recognise the relevance of certain provisions of Rent Control Acts for their application to the properties covered under the Public Premises Act. It is stated in the guidelines that the public authorities would have rights similar to private landlords under the Rent Control Acts in dealing with genuine legal tenants. It follows that the public authorities will have the obligations of the private landlords also. It is relevant to note that the purpose of these guidelines is to prevent arbitrary use of powers under the Public Premises Act. The relevance of the guidelines will depend upon the nature of guidelines and the source of power to issue such guidelines. The source of the right to apply for determination of standard rent is the Rent Control Act, and not the guidelines. 69. We may also note by subsequent clarificatory order dated 23.7.2003, the Central Government has made it clear that the guidelines dated 30.5.2002 will not apply to affluent tenants: The Government resolution dated 30.5.2002 embodies the guidelines dated 14.1.1992 for observance by the public sector un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the circumstances, we hold as follows:- (a) The provisions of the Maharastra Rent Control Act, 1999 with respect to fixation of Standard Rent for premises, and requiring the landlord not to cut off or withhold essential supply or service, and to restore the same when necessary, are not in conflict with or repugnant to any of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (b) The provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1971 shall govern the relationship between the public undertakings covered under the Act and their occupants to the extent they provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises, recovery of arrears of rent or damages for such unauthorised occupation, and other incidental matters specified under the Act. (c) The provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 shall govern the relationship between the public undertakings and their occupants to the extent this Act covers the other aspects of the relationship between the landlord and tenants, not covered under the Public Premises Act, 1971. (d) The application of appellant and similar applications of the tenants for fixation of Standard Rent or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
