Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Narayan Lachmandas Mathreja, granted a license to the respondent, M/s Savanah Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., to use premises at Galaxy Garden, Koregaon Park, Pune, under an agreement styled as 'An agreement of leave and licence'. The respondent filed Civil Suit No.356 of 2008 contending that the agreement was actually a tenancy and sought a declaration of tenancy and that the standard rent should not exceed Rs.10,000 per month. The respondent valued the suit at Rs.1,20,000, being the yearly standard rent claimed. The petitioner filed an application contending that the suit should be valued on the basis of the agreed license fee of Rs.80,000 per month, not on the claimed standard rent. The trial court allowed the application and directed the respondent to amend the valuation to an amount equivalent to one year's agreed license fee. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act before the District Court, which partly allowed the revision and directed the respondent to pay 1/4th ad valorem court fee on the market value of the property. The petitioner challenged this revisional order in the present writ petition. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, relying on the Division Bench decision in Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir Vs. Rambhujarat Kshampati, 1982(1) Bom.C.R.832, which held that the words 'any order' in Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act (analogous to Section 34(4)) do not include procedural orders that do not affect the rights and liabilities of parties. The High Court held that the order on valuation of the suit is a procedural order and does not affect the substantive rights of the parties. Therefore, the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the District Court, and restored the trial court's order directing the respondent to amend the valuation.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Procedural Orders - The District Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is confined to orders which affect the rights and liabilities of parties and does not extend to procedural orders such as an order directing amendment of valuation of the suit. The Division Bench in Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir Vs. Rambhujarat Kshampati, 1982(1) Bom.C.R.832 held that the words 'any order' in Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act (analogous to Section 34(4)) do not include procedural orders. (Paras 5-6) B) Rent Control - Valuation of Suit - Court Fee - The trial court's order directing the plaintiff to value the suit on the basis of the agreed license fee (Rs.80,000 per month) rather than the claimed standard rent (Rs.10,000 per month) is a procedural order relating to court fee and valuation, which does not finally determine any substantive right or liability. Such an order is not amenable to revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. (Paras 4-6) C) Rent Control - Revision - Maintainability - The revisional court under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act cannot entertain a revision against a procedural order on valuation. The District Court erred in entertaining the revision and modifying the trial court's order. The impugned order of the District Court is set aside and the trial court's order is restored. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order passed by the trial court directing the plaintiff to amend the valuation of the suit is a procedural order not affecting rights and liabilities of parties and therefore not revisable under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the District Court dated 24 March 2009, and restored the order of the trial court directing the respondent to amend the valuation of the suit.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act does not extend to procedural orders that do not affect rights and liabilities of parties
- Valuation of suit for court fee purposes is a procedural matter
- Order directing amendment of valuation is not revisable
