Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Pradeep Advertising Agency, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court that the premises let out to it was an open plot and therefore not covered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by both courts below. The petitioner argued that the definition of 'premises' under Section 7(9) of the Act includes gardens, grounds, garages, and outhouses appurtenant to a building, and thus the open plot should be covered. The High Court examined Section 7(9) and noted that the definition clearly states that 'premises' means any building or part of a building let or given on licence separately, including appurtenant structures. Since the courts below had concurrently found that the premises was an open plot and not a building or part thereof, the provisions of the Rent Control Act were not applicable. The court found no error in the findings and dismissed the petition. The judgment was delivered by Justice R.K. Deshpande on 3rd December 2013.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Definition of Premises - Section 7(9) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Open Plot - The issue was whether an open plot let out to the petitioner is covered under the definition of 'premises' under Section 7(9) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The court held that the definition of 'premises' includes a building or part of a building and appurtenant gardens, grounds, garages, and outhouses, but does not include an open plot by itself. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below that the premises is an open plot were upheld, and the petition was dismissed. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an open plot let out to the petitioner falls within the definition of 'premises' under Section 7(9) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below that the premises is an open plot and the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is not applicable are upheld.
Law Points
- Definition of premises under Section 7(9) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 includes building or part of building and appurtenant structures
- not open plots
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (12) 129
Writ Petition No.2241 of 2012
Shri S.S. Joshi for Petitioner; Shri A.V. Bhide for Respondent No.1
M/s Pradeep Advertising Agency
Sri Aurbindo Circle, Registered Society; Corporation of the City of Nagpur; The District Judge3, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging concurrent findings of courts below that premises is an open plot and not covered under Rent Control Act
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought declaration and permanent injunction regarding tenancy rights
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the premises let out to it is covered under the definition of 'premises' under Section 7(9) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
Previous Decisions
Both the trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit holding that the premises is an open plot and the Rent Control Act does not apply
Issues
Whether an open plot falls within the definition of 'premises' under Section 7(9) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the definition of 'premises' includes gardens, grounds, garages, and outhouses appurtenant to a building, and thus the open plot should be covered
Respondents supported the concurrent findings that the premises is an open plot and not a building or part thereof
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of 'premises' under Section 7(9) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 includes a building or part of a building and appurtenant structures, but does not include an open plot by itself. Concurrent findings of fact that the premises is an open plot cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
Both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent finding of fact that the premises let out to the petitioner/plaintiff are open plot, and hence the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are not applicable to the present case.
It is apparent that the 'premises' under Section 7(9) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act comprise the building or part of a building, let or given on licence separately, including the gardens, grounds, garages and outhouses, etc., appurtenant to such building.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was dismissed by the trial court. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 7(9)
