Case Note & Summary
The respondent/landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.290 of 2016 under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for fixation of standard rent of the suit shop premises at Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner/tenant opposed the claim. During the suit, the landlord filed an application under Section 8(4) of the Act for interim rent. The trial court allowed the application and fixed interim rent at Rs.4,000/- per month. The tenant filed a revision under Section 34(4) of the Act, which was dismissed by the District Judge. The tenant then filed a writ petition challenging both orders. The main legal issue was whether Section 8(4)(a) of the Act, which empowers the court to order payment of interim rent, applies only to suits for recovery of rent or also to suits for fixation of standard rent. The petitioner argued that the suit was only for fixation of standard rent, not for recovery, and therefore the interim rent order was without jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the power is wide enough to cover both types of suits. The High Court examined the language of Section 8(4)(a) and held that it specifically refers to 'a suit for recovery of rent' and cannot be extended to a suit for fixation of standard rent. The court noted that the suit was solely for determination of standard rent and permitted increase, with no claim for recovery of arrears. Consequently, the trial court had no jurisdiction to fix interim rent. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the trial court and the revisional court, and directed that the application for interim rent be dismissed. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Interim Rent - Section 8(4)(a) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Scope - The court held that the power to fix interim rent under Section 8(4)(a) is available only in a suit for recovery of rent, and not in a suit for fixation of standard rent under Section 8 of the Act. The trial court's order fixing interim rent in a suit for standard rent was without jurisdiction. (Paras 10-12)
B) Rent Control - Standard Rent - Section 8 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Suit for Fixation - The suit filed by the landlord under Section 8 was solely for determination of standard rent and permitted increase, and did not include any claim for recovery of rent. Therefore, the application for interim rent under Section 8(4)(a) was not maintainable. (Paras 3-4, 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could fix interim rent under Section 8(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in a suit filed under Section 8 of the same Act for fixation of standard rent, or whether such interim rent can only be ordered in a suit for recovery of rent.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders of the trial court and the revisional court, and directed that the application for interim rent (Exh.24) be dismissed. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 8(4)(a) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Interim rent can only be ordered in suits for recovery of rent
- not in suits for fixation of standard rent
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 281
Writ Petition No. 1023 of 2020
Shri Y.J.Chandurkar, Adv. h/f. Shri J.J.Chandurkar, Adv. for Petitioner; Shri J.B.Kasat, Advocate for Respondent
M/s. Perfect Auto by its Proprietor, Mohanlal Maniklal Gupta, Partner of Perfect Auto
Santosh Narsingdasji Agrawal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging orders fixing interim rent in a suit for fixation of standard rent under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner/tenant sought to quash the order of the trial court fixing interim rent at Rs.4,000/- per month and the revisional court's order confirming it.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the interim rent order on the ground that Section 8(4)(a) of the Act applies only to suits for recovery of rent, not to suits for fixation of standard rent.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the landlord's application for interim rent and fixed it at Rs.4,000/- per month. The revisional court dismissed the tenant's revision.
Issues
Whether Section 8(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 empowers the court to fix interim rent in a suit for fixation of standard rent under Section 8 of the Act, or only in a suit for recovery of rent.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the suit was only for fixation of standard rent, not for recovery of rent, and therefore the interim rent order under Section 8(4)(a) was without jurisdiction.
Respondent argued that the power under Section 8(4)(a) is wide enough to cover suits for fixation of standard rent as well.
Ratio Decidendi
The power to fix interim rent under Section 8(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is available only in a suit for recovery of rent, and not in a suit for fixation of standard rent under Section 8 of the Act. The trial court had no jurisdiction to fix interim rent in a suit solely for determination of standard rent.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is filed under Section 8 of the Act of 1999 for fixation of standard rent and permitted increase. The suit is not for recovery of rent. Therefore, the application under Section 8(4)(a) of the Act of 1999 for interim rent was not maintainable.
Section 8(4)(a) of the Act of 1999 reads as under: 'Where a suit is filed for recovery of rent, the Court may, at any stage of the suit, make an order directing the tenant to pay such amount as interim rent...'
In the present case, the suit is filed under Section 8 of the Act of 1999 for fixation of standard rent and permitted increase. The suit is not for recovery of rent. Therefore, the application under Section 8(4)(a) of the Act of 1999 for interim rent was not maintainable.
Procedural History
The respondent/landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.290 of 2016 under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for fixation of standard rent. The petitioner/tenant filed a written statement. The landlord filed an application under Section 8(4) for interim rent. The trial court allowed the application and fixed interim rent at Rs.4,000/- per month on 26/07/2018. The tenant filed a revision under Section 34(4) of the Act, which was dismissed by the District Judge-1, Amravati on 15/11/2019. The tenant then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 8, Section 8(4), Section 8(4)(a), Section 34(4)
