CPWD-based rent fixation and unlawful rent adjustments: arrears were payable, while disputed dues had to be pursued separately.

A public authority that had itself fixed rent with reference to CPWD recommendations could not later depart from that basis without a lawful alternative foundation, and the tenants were entitled to arrears calculated at the revised CPWD rates for the relevant period. The authority also could not withhold or adjust rent against alleged municipal tax, repair, or maintenance charges in the absence of specific pleading, proof, or an agreement permitting such deductions; disputed monetary claims of that kind were to be pursued in a civil forum. The writ petition was therefore allowed, with the rent arrears payable and interest directed in default.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners were entitled to arrears of rent on the basis of the CPWD-revised rates for the period in question; (ii) whether the respondents could withhold or adjust the rent towards alleged municipal tax, repair and maintenance charges.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners were entitled to arrears of rent on the basis of the CPWD-revised rates for the period in question.

Analysis: The rent for the premises had earlier been fixed by the respondents themselves with reference to the CPWD recommendation. The record showed that the respondents had acted on the CPWD-based rent structure and had not produced any alternate yardstick to justify departure from it. The Court found that the respondents could not resile from their earlier position and that the petitioners' supplementary affidavit set out the arrears on the revised basis, which was not specifically controverted by any counter-calculation.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to arrears of rent calculated at the CPWD-revised rates for the relevant period.

Issue (ii): whether the respondents could withhold or adjust the rent towards alleged municipal tax, repair and maintenance charges.

Analysis: The Court noted that the respondents had not furnished specific pleading or proof of payment of the alleged maintenance and repair expenses. On municipal tax, the Court held that the effect of the rent fixation could not override Section 151 of the Asansol Municipal Corporation Act, 1990, and that the question of apportionment raised an arguable statutory issue. It further held that, in the absence of a specific agreement, adjustment of repair and maintenance charges from rent could not be claimed as of right in writ proceedings. Any monetary claim of the respondents, if legally sustainable, would have to be pursued in a civil suit.

Conclusion: The respondents could not deduct or adjust the alleged municipal tax, repair, or maintenance dues from the rent payable in the writ proceeding.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the respondents were directed to pay the quantified arrears of rent with interest in default, while leaving the respondents at liberty to seek recovery of any alleged ancillary dues before the competent civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a public authority has itself fixed rent on a particular statutory or administrative basis and has acted upon that basis, it cannot later depart from it without a lawful alternate foundation; alleged offsets against rent cannot be enforced in writ jurisdiction without clear proof, and disputed money claims must ordinarily be pursued in a civil forum.

---