Contractual rent includes agreed municipal and electricity charges; distress recovery remained available despite a pending standard rent application.

Municipal taxes and electricity charges expressly undertaken by tenants under the lease were treated as part of the rent, so they could be recovered by distress warrant despite a pending standard rent application. The court also held that the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain landlord-tenant proceedings and, with the procedural powers conferred by the rent control law and the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, could issue a distress warrant. The pendency of a standard rent fixation application did not suspend recovery of amounts then contractually payable, and a court deposit did not place those sums at the landlord's disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether municipal taxes and electricity charges, undertaken by the tenants under the lease, formed part of the rent recoverable by distress warrant; (ii) Whether the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad had jurisdiction and power to issue a distress warrant under the rent control law and the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, and whether that power was affected by the pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent.

Issue (i): Whether municipal taxes and electricity charges, undertaken by the tenants under the lease, formed part of the rent recoverable by distress warrant.

Analysis: The tenancy agreement expressly obliged the tenants to pay municipal taxes and electricity charges as part of the rent arrangement. In that setting, those amounts were treated as part of the rent payable by them. The existence of a claim for standard rent did not alter the contractual character of the liability in respect of these items where the tenants had undertaken to bear them under the lease.

Conclusion: The amounts were recoverable as rent, and the objection that they could not be recovered by distress warrant failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad had jurisdiction and power to issue a distress warrant under the rent control law and the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, and whether that power was affected by the pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent.

Analysis: Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the specified court to entertain suits and proceedings between landlord and tenant and to decide claims arising under the Act. Section 31 required those courts to follow the prescribed procedure in hearing and executing orders, while Section 49 authorised rules for procedure, including proceedings for execution and distress warrants. After the reorganisation of the State and the Ahmedabad City Courts Act, 1961, the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad was the court of exclusive jurisdiction in that city and could exercise the powers of a Presidency Small Cause Court, including the power under Section 53 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent did not suspend the landlord's right to seek distress for amounts then payable, and until standard rent was fixed or interim relief granted, contractual rent remained payable. The tenant's deposit in court did not place the amount at the landlord's disposal, so the arrears continued to subsist for the purpose of distress.

Conclusion: The court had jurisdiction and power to issue the distress warrant, and the pendency of the standard rent application did not bar the remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the distress proceedings failed in full, and the landlord's recovery by distress warrant was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a lease expressly makes municipal taxes and similar charges part of the rent, and the statutory court retains exclusive jurisdiction with procedural power to execute its orders, distress may issue for unpaid amounts notwithstanding a pending standard rent application if the amount has not been made available to the landlord.

---