Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, The Ichalkaranji Industrial Co-operative Estate Ltd., a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, challenged concurrent findings of the 4th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ichalkaranji (dated 13 June 2014) and the District Judge-2, Ichalkaranji (dated 19 December 2019) in a rent fixation dispute. The society had obtained 68 acres of land on lease from the Government of Maharashtra, developed it, and allotted factory sheds/galas to its members on premium. The respondent, a member of the society, was in possession of a gala after the previous member vacated. A dispute arose, and the society issued a demand notice. The respondent filed an application under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act for fixation of standard rent. The society opposed, arguing that the Rent Control Act did not apply as the dispute was between a society and its member. The trial court fixed the standard rent, and the appellate court confirmed. The High Court, under Article 227, heard the matter. The court noted that the society is a landlord and the respondent is a tenant, and the Rent Control Act applies. The court found no perversity or error of law in the concurrent findings and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Applicability of Rent Act to Co-operative Society - Section 8 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act - The issue was whether the Maharashtra Rent Control Act applies to premises owned by an industrial co-operative society and let out to its members. The court held that the Rent Control Act applies to such premises as the society is a landlord and the member is a tenant, and the relationship is governed by the Act. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below. (Paras 1-6)
B) Constitutional Law - Scope of Article 227 - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The court held that under Article 227, it does not act as an appellate court and will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perversity or error of law. The court found no such error and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Rent Control Act applies to premises owned by a co-operative society and let out to its members, and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding fixation of standard rent under Section 8 of the Act are liable to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act applies to premises of co-operative society
- Section 8 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- jurisdiction of civil court under Rent Control Act
- concurrent findings not interfered under Article 227
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO. 9037 OF 2024
Mr. Shubham Dhenge a/w. Ms. Kalyani Mangave i/b. Mr. Manoj A. Patil for petitioner, Mr. Aditya Raktade a/w. Ms. Aarti Shah for respondent
The Ichalkaranji Industrial Co-op. Estate Ltd. thr. Manager & Authorized
Dastagir Abul Bhaldar (Deceased) thr. Legal Heir namely Mobin Dastagir Bhaldar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent findings in a rent fixation dispute.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner-society sought to quash the orders fixing standard rent under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Filing Reason
The petitioner-society was aggrieved by the demand notice and the application for fixation of standard rent filed by the respondent, arguing that the Rent Control Act did not apply.
Previous Decisions
The 4th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ichalkaranji passed a judgment and order dated 13 June 2014 fixing standard rent, which was confirmed by the District Judge-2, Ichalkaranji on 19 December 2019.
Issues
Whether the Maharashtra Rent Control Act applies to premises owned by a co-operative society and let out to its members.
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are liable to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act does not apply as the dispute is between a society and its member, and the society's bye-laws govern the relationship.
Respondent argued that the Rent Control Act applies and the courts below correctly fixed the standard rent.
Ratio Decidendi
The Maharashtra Rent Control Act applies to premises owned by a co-operative society and let out to its members, as the society is a landlord and the member is a tenant. Under Article 227, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity or error of law.
Judgment Excerpts
By an Order dated 24 July 2025, 'Rule' was issued in the present writ petition and by consent of both parties, since trivial issue was involved, the matter was taken up for final hearing.
It is the case of the petitioner – society that they are registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
As regards the respondent, there is no doubt that he is a member of the petitioner – society.
Procedural History
The respondent filed an application under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act before the 4th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ichalkaranji, which was allowed on 13 June 2014. The petitioner-society appealed to the District Judge-2, Ichalkaranji, which confirmed the order on 19 December 2019. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was heard and dismissed on 3 November 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act: Section 8
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act:
