TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 1263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itors, and is a tenant in possession of 5th floor of a seven storey building, situated at 269 D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai owned by the first Respondent, L.I.C. L.I.C. is a statutory corporation constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The area under occupation of the appellant is 1289.16 sq. feet (equivalent to 113 sq. metres). The petitioner is a tenant of these premises since 1st August, 1988 under an agreement of lease which has been extended from time to time. It is relevant to note that there are no proceedings of eviction filed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellant. The second respondent is the Regional Manager (estates) of L.I.C. 3. The respondent No. 2 revised the monthly rent of these premises suddenly by his letter of 14th July, 2004 from Rs. 6,891/- to Rs. 39,069/-, including Municipal taxes and miscellaneous charges. The appellant filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court being Writ Petition No. 2266 of 2004 to challenge the increasing of rent as arbitrary. The respondents made a statement in the High Court that if the petitioner abides by clause IV (e) of the lease agreement between the parties and pays increased rent as provided therein, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k up of the rent bill by their letter dated 2.4.2008. Since no reply was received, appellant filed an Application (registered as RAN application No.24/SR/08) under Section 8 (3) of the MRC Act in the Court of Small Causes for fixation of standard rent, and also filed an application for fixing interim rent. Respondents in their turn challenged the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to entertain the proceeding, and contended that the suit premises were public premises covered under the Public Premises Act, and the MRC Act did not apply to them. They filed an application (exhibit 14) seeking a decision on that issue as a preliminary issue. The Small Causes Court, vide its order dated 30.3.2009, rejected this application Exhibit 14 and held that the said Standard Rent Application was maintainable under the provisions of MRC Act. Being aggrieved by that order, the respondents filed a Writ Petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the Bombay High Court bearing Writ Petition No. 5023 of 2009. 7. A Learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the matter, accepted the contention raised by the respondents, and allowed the petition by his order dated 8.9.2009. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the MRC Act will apply. 9. As against this, the submission of Mr. H.P. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General, was that the concept of standard rent was foreign to the Public Premises Act, and should not be permitted to be applied to the public premises by permitting applications under the MRC Act for that purpose, particularly when the Parliament has not made any provision in this behalf in the Public Premises Act. That apart, according to the respondents they were seeking to recover the permitted increases on account of increase in the ratable value of the building by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, which was being disputed by the appellant. With a view to appreciate these rival submissions, we shall look into the general principles governing the relationship between landlord and tenants, and relevant provisions of the MRC Act as well as the Public Premises Act. Relationship of landlord and tenant in general - 10. A `lease' is defined in Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short T.P. Act), thus:- "105. Lease defined - A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... make it good within three months after such notice has been given or left' (See Section 108 (m) of T.P. Act. If the tenant commits breaches of the lease agreement by not paying the rent regularly or remaining in arrears thereof, or causing damage to the premises, the landlord may terminate the lease earlier, even before the expiry of the agreed term as per the provisions concerning the termination provided in the agreement and the Transfer of Property Act. If the tenant does not vacate the premises after the termination of lease, the landlord will have to file a suit for evicting him in the Civil Court. 12. On the other hand `if the lessor neglects to make, within a reasonable time after notice, any repairs which he is bound to make to the property, the lessee may make the same himself, and deduct the expense of such repairs with interest from the rent, or otherwise recover it from the lessor' (see Section 108 (f) of T.P. Act). Section 108 (l) of the T.P. Act lays down that `the lessee is bound to pay or tender, at the proper time and place, the premium or rent to the lessor or his agent in this behalf'. This implies that the amount of rent that the landlord wil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ip between L.I.C as the landlord and its tenants was governed under the Bombay Rent Act 1947. The question is as to what change has been brought about by the Public Premises Act 1971, into this relationship? The Public Premises Act 1971, provides only for eviction of unauthorized occupants, and recovery of arrears of rent from the tenant. Can it therefore be said that the other provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, ceased to apply to the tenancies which were earlier covered thereunder? Or would it be proper to say that only the aspect of the eviction and recovery of arrears of rent came to be covered under the Public Premises Act? Can it be said that because the Public Premises Act came to be applied in 1999, L.I.C could suddenly charge any rent as it deemed fit in excess of the standard rent? Can it be said that the remedy for the tenant for fixation of standard rent, and getting the essential services restored when necessary by moving the Court was no longer available merely because the Public Premises Act came to be applied? Does the Public Premises Act have an overriding effect denying these remedies to the tenants for all purposes? 15. The Bombay Rent Act came to be replac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) eviction, (iv) encouraging the construction of new houses by assuring fair return of investment by the landlord, and (v) matters connected with the purposes mentioned above. Section 2 of the act gives the applicability of the act. Sub- section (1) thereof lays down that in the first instance, the act applies to premises let for the purposes of residence, education, business, trade or storage, and in the areas specified in Schedule I and Schedule II of the Act. Schedule I and II mention the cities and towns to which this Act applies. 19. Section 3 of MRC Act provides for the exemptions from this Act. Whereas sub-section 1 (a) thereof excludes from the application of this Act, the premises belonging to the Government or a local authority, Sub-Section 1 (b) declines to give protection of the provisions of this Act to certain tenants where the tenants are banks, public sector undertakings, multi-national companies, private and public limited companies with a share capital of more than Rs. 1 crore, etc. Section 4 gives the power of the State Government to prescribe conditions for exemption in respect of premises belonging to local authority. We quote these two sections in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rection under this sub-section, the State Government shall ensure that the tenancy rights of the existing tenants are not adversely affected. (3) The expression "premises belonging to the Government or a local authority' in sub-section (1) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said sub-section or in any judgment, decree or order of a court, nor include a building erected on any land held by any person from the Government or a local authority under an agreement, lease, licence or other grant, although having regard to the provisions of such agreement, lease, licence or grant of building so erected may belong or continue to belong to the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, and such person shall be entitled to create a tenancy in respect of such building or a part thereof. 4. Power of State Government to issue orders In respect of premises belonging to local authority, etc. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, from time to time, by general or special order, direct that the exemption granted to a local authority under sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be subject to such conditions and terms as it may specify eith....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, or the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, such rent plus an increase of 5 per cent, in the rent so fixed ; or (b) where the standard rent or fair rent is not so fixed, then subject to the provisions of sections 6 and 8. - (i) the rent at which the premises were let on the Ist day of October 1987; or (ii) where the premises were not let on the Ist day of October 1987, or the rent at which they were last let before that day, plus an increase of 5 per cent, in the rent of the premises let before the Ist day of October, 1987, or (c) in any of the cases specified in section 8, the rent fixed by the court; "8. Court may fix standard rent and permitted increases in certain cases (1) Subject to the provisions of section 9 in any of the following cases, the court may, upon an application made to it for the purpose, or in any suit or proceedings, fix the standard rent at such amount as, having regard to the provisions of this Act and the circumstances of the case, the court deems just,- (a) where the court is satisfied that there is no sufficient evidence to ascert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to the landlord, such amount thereof as the court may specify, during the pendency of the suit; (c) The court may also direct that if the tenant fails to comply with any order made as aforesaid, within such time as may be allowed by it, he shall not be entitled to appear in or defend the suit except with leave of the court, which leave may be granted subject to such terms and conditions as the court may specify. (5) No appeal shall lie from any order of the court under sub- sections (3) and (4). (6) An application under this section may be made jointly by all or any of the tenants interested in respect of the premises situated in the same building. 29. Landlord not to cut-off or withhold essential supply or service (1) No landlord, either himself or through any person acting or purporting to act on his behalf, shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut-off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the premises let to him. (2) A tenant in occupation of the premises may, if the landlord has contravened the provisions of sub-section (1), make an application to the court for a direction to restore such supply or service. (3) Having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the permission or for supply of the essential service and it shall be lawful for that authority to grant permission for, supply of such essential supply or service applied for without insisting on production of a "No Objection Certificate" from the landlord by such tenant." The Public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971- 23. Now, when we turn to the Public Premises Act, the preamble of the Act states that it is an Act to provide for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters. It was enacted to deal with the problem of rampant unauthorised occupation of public premises by providing a speedy machinery for the recovery of these premises and the arrears of rent from the occupants thereof. Section 2 (e) of this Act defines the public premises, Section 2 (f) defines rent, and Section 2 (g) defines unauthorized occupation. Section 2 (g) is in two parts. The first part of the said section states, that it means the occupation by any person of the public premises without any authority for such occupation. The second part is inclusive in nature, and it expressly covers the continuation in occupation by any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erritory of Delhi]- (i) any premises belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any Municipal Committee or notified area committee; (ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Authority, whether such premises are in the possession of, or leased out by, the said Authority; and (iii) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of any State Government or the Government of any Union Territory;] 2(f) "rent", in relation to any public premises, means the consideration payable periodically for the authorized occupation of the premises, and includes,- (i) any charge for electricity, water or any other services in connection with the occupation of the premises, (ii) any tax (by whatever name called) payable in respect of the premises, where such charge or tax is payable by the Central Government or the corporate authority, 2(g) "unauthorized occupation", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....half may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. Section 7 - Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises (1) Where any person, is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such installments as may be specified in the order. (2) Where any person is, or has at anytime been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. 1 [(2A) While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with simple interest at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd rent application would be maintainable. (iv) Section 3 of the MRC Act does not exempt LIC and hence the provisions of MRC Act are applicable to its premises. (v) Merely because the premises were covered under the Public Premises Act, the jurisdiction to entertain the Standard Rent Application under the MRC Act was not ousted. There was no conflict between the two Acts for that purpose. The impugned judgment of the High Court and its reliance on the constitution bench judgment in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. - 26. The learned Single Judge who decided the petition principally relied upon the judgment of a constitution bench of this Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Another Versus Punjab National Bank and Others [1990 (4) SCC 406], in support of his view. This judgment decided four Civil Appeals concerning the properties of four respondents situated in Delhi. Two of them were concerning the properties of Punjab National Bank, one of Union of India and one of LIC. In all these matters the respondents had initiated actions for eviction under the Public Premises Act. The question in those appeals was whether the occupants could be evicted under the Public Premises Act, or whether they c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts under the Rent Control Legislation to deal with the matter of recovery of rent in respect of public premises." Again, it is difficult to say that this approach is a correct one. That is because the High Court was not concerned with the recovery of arrears of rent by a public authority, an action against which would get ousted in view the provision of section 15 of the Public Premises Act, as also one against eviction. The question is whether a tenant's application for fixation of Standard Rent would get ousted. The respondents are claiming that what they are charging are permissible increases, whereas the appellant contends that what is charged is in excess of what should be the Standard Rent, and for that purpose it has filed an application for fixation of Standard Rent under the MRC Act. Would it, not be maintainable under that act? 28. In Ashoka Marketing, this Court noted that the rent control legislation would fall within the ambit of entries 6, 7 and 13 of List III (Concurrent List). The Public Premises Act would otherwise fall under entry 32 of List I being a law with respect to the property of Union of India. However, in relation to the properties belonging to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for a speedy machinery to secure eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises. As opposed to the general law which provides for filing of a regular suit for recovery of possession of property in a competent court and for trial of such a suit in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Public Premises Act confers the power to pass an order of eviction of an unauthorized occupant in a public premises on a designated officer and prescribes the procedure to be followed by the said officer before passing such an order. (iii) Therefore, the Public Premises Act is also a special statute relating to eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. In other words, both the enactments, namely, the Rent Control Act and the Public Premises Act, are special statutes in relation to the matters dealt with therein." ......(nos. to sub-paragraphs supplied) Having noted the distinctive features of the two acts, the Court held that the principle that a subsequent general law cannot derogate from an earlier special law could not be invoked in that case because the later act, namely, Public Premises Act was also special statute and not a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll override those of any other law, stimulating and incisive problems of interpretation arise. Since statutory interpretation has no conventional protocol, cases of such conflict have to be decided in reference to the object and purpose of the laws under consideration......"(emphasis supplied) Therefore, the Court concluded in para 23 as follows:- "23. ......Bearing in mind the language of the two laws, their object and purpose, and the fact that one of them is later in point of time and was enacted with the knowledge of the non-obstante clauses in the earlier law, we have come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 14A and Chapter IIIA of the Rent Control Act must prevail over those contained in Sections 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance Act." 30. Accordingly, in the context of the conflict between the two Acts, this Court held in Ashoka Marketing, as follows:- "61. The principle which emerges from these decisions is that in the case of inconsistency between the provisions of two enactments, both of which can be regarded as special in nature, the conflict has to be resolved by reference to the purpose and policy underlying the two enactments and the clear intendment co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dealt with by that Act, since the Public Premises Act did not claim to cover the subject other than eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and recovery of arrears of rent. Therefore, it was submitted that the application for fixation of standard rent will be very much maintainable under the provisions of the MRC Act. Public Premises Act vis-`-vis the Bombay Rent Act and the MRC Act on the issue of eviction of unauthorised occupants from Public Premises- 32. Before we deal with the rival submissions on the maintainability of the standard rent application, we may note that with respect to the aspect of eviction of unauthorised occupants from the public premises, it is now well settled that the Public Premises Act will apply and not the Bombay Rent Act or the subsequent MRC Act. (i) In Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd. & Ors. [2002 (8) SCC 182] one of the questions before the Constitution Bench was whether the provisions of Bombay Rent Act having been re-enacted after 1971 by the State Legislature with the assent of the President will prevail over the provisions of the Public Premises Act by virtue of Article....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Government. Thus, the Premises Act has a very limited application. Secondly, the object of the Premises Act is to provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises by a summary procedure so that the premises may be available to the authorities mentioned in the Premises Act which constitute a class by themselves. ....... 9. Thus, it would appear that both the scope and the object of the Premises Act is quite different from that of the Rent Act. The Rent Act is of much wider application than the Premises Act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in Section 2 of the Premises Act. The object of the Rent Act is to afford special protection to all the tenants or private landlords or landlords who are neither a corporation nor government or corporate bodies. It would be seen that even under the Rent Act, by virtue of an amendment a special category has been carved out under Section 25-B which provides for special procedure for eviction to landlords who require premises for their personal necessity. Thus, Section 25-B itself becomes a special law within the Rent Act. On a parity of reasoning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rised occupation has been defined in a vide manner and it includes the continuation in occupation of any person of the public premises after his authority to occupy has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. It would as well include the determination of the authority to occupy whenever the premises are required bonafide and reasonably by the public authority. There was no such special procedure for the public bodies until the Public Premises Act was enacted. When it comes to the requirement of the Government or the Public Corporation, now the public body will be taking steps under the Public Premises Act. It is, however, relevant to note as held in this judgment that the Public Premises Act has a very limited application as against the Rent Act which affords a special protection to the tenants by fixing standard rent and requiring the landlord to maintain the essential services. It was, therefore, submitted that the standard rent application under the Rent Act would remain available to the tenant even if the premises are otherwise covered under the Public Premises Act for the purposes of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent from the unauthorised occupants. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State." 35. The question of repugnancy between the law made by the Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature may arise in cases when both the legislation occupy the same field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in List III and where a direct conflict is seen between the two. The Principles laid down by a bench of 3 Judges in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar reported in [1983 (4) SCC 45] were reiterated by a Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors. reported in [2004 (10) SCC 201]. Para 31 (5) thereof is instructive for our purpose and it reads as follows:- "31 (5) Where the legislative competence of the legislature of any State is questioned on the ground that it encroaches upon the legislative competence of Parliament to enact a law, the question one has to ask is whether the legislation relates to any of the entries in List I or III. If it does, no further q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of U.P. [AIR 1959 SC 648] wherein it was held that the repugnancy between the two statutes may be ascertained by considering whether the Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter considered in the State Act replacing the Act of the State Legislature. The Constitution Bench then laid down the principles governing the rule of repugnancy in paragraph 35 which are as follows:- 35. On a careful consideration, therefore, of the authorities referred to above, the following propositions emerge: 1. That in order to decide the question of repugnancy it must be shown that the two enactments contain inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions, so that they cannot stand together or operate in the same field. 2. That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes. 3. That where the two statutes occupy a particular field, but there is room or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without coming into collision with each other, no repugnancy results. 4. That where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and separate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9], the issue was, with respect to the application of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, to the employees who were otherwise governed under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966. In that context this Court had to examine whether there was any conflict between the two Acts and particularly when the A.P. Act was a later act and it had received the assent of the President. The question was whether compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act could be insisted for establishments governed under the Shops and Establishments Act. This Court held that those provisions will be applicable and there was no conflict between the provisions of the two Acts. Section 25-F of the Central Act provided for the conditions precedent for retrenchment, and the non- compliance therewith made the order of retrenchment fatal. Section 41 (1) and (3) of the A.P. Act provided for the authorities to settle the disputes arising out of retrenchment. Section 25 J (2) of the I.D. Act reads as follows:- "25-J.Effect of laws inconsistent with this chapter.-(1)....... (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to affec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act No. 1 of 1997 that if two legislations operate in different fields without encroaching upon each other fields there cannot be any repugnancy. 41. In the field of criminal law also the same approach has been adopted by this Court. In State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and Ors. [2008 (13) SCC 5], the question was with respect to the conflict between the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act for short) and Telegraph Act, 1885. In Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2010 (5) SCC 246], the question was with respect to the conflict between the MCOC Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967. In both matters this Court took the view that mere difference in the two Acts is not sufficient, and an incidental encroachment is irrelevant. This Court held that there was no conflict in both the cases. Fixation of Standard Rent in the context of exemptions from the Rent Control Laws - The question of remedy 42. Whatever be the object of granting exemption, where the object is to see that the properties of the State or semi-state bodies should not suffer by the rigours of the Rent Control Laws or the possession of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." Thereafter what the Court observed at the end of this para 8 is relevant for our purpose:- " ...... it is clear that in this case the Legislature was not in any sense exempting the Government from the operation of the Act in order to permit the Government to do the very thing which the Legislature was prohibiting in the case of landlords who were not a local authority or Central or State Government. It is not too much to assume, as the Legislature did in this case assume, that the very Government whose object was to protect the tenants and prevent rent being increased and prevent people being ejected, would not itself when it was the landlord do those very things which it sought to prohibit its people from doing, and therefore the underlying assumption of this exemption is that Government would not increase rents and would not eject tenants unless it was absolutely necessary in public interest and unless a particular building was required for a public purpose." 44. In another case Baburao Shantaram More Vs. The Bombay Housing Board reported in [AIR 1954 SC 153] which came up before a Constitution Bench of this Court,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vations of Chagla, C.J. in Rampratap Jaidayal case cannot make such conduct a matter of contract pure and simple. These corporations must act in accordance with certain constitutional conscience and whether they have so acted, must be discernible from the conduct of such corporations....." (emphasis supplied) Thereafter, in para 27 the Court further observed in the following words:- "27. We are inclined to accept the submission that every activity of a public authority especially in the background of the assumption on which such authority enjoys immunity from the rigours of the Rent Act, must be informed by reason and guided by the public interest. All exercise of discretion or power by public authorities as the respondent, in respect of dealing with tenants in respect of which they have been treated separately and distinctly from other landlords on the assumption that they would not act as private landlords, must be judged by that standard. If a governmental policy or action even in contractual matters fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. See the observation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the premises were acquired. (iii) A person in occupation of any premises should not be treated or declared to be an unauthorised occupant merely on service of notice of termination of tenancy, but the fact of unauthorised occupation shall be decided by following the due procedure of law. Further, the contractual agreement shall not be wound up by taking advantage of the provisions of the P.P. (E) Act, 1971. At the same time, it will be open to the public authority to secure periodic revision of rent in terms of the provisions of the Rent Control Act in each State or to move under genuine grounds under the Rent Control Act for resuming possession. In other words, the public authorities would have rights similar to private landlords under the Rent Control Act in dealing with genuine legal tenants. (iv) It is necessary to give no room for allegations that evictions were selectively resorted to for the purpose of securing and unwarranted increase in rent, or that a change in tenancy was permitted in order to benefit particular individuals or institutions. In order to avoid such imputations or abuse of discretionary powers, the release of premises or change of tenancy should be dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. He pointed out that as noted by this Court also in Shangrila Food Products Ltd. and Another Vs. L.I.C. and Another reported in [1996 (5) SCC 54], that "unless the occupant is first adjudged as an unauthorized occupant, his liability to pay damages does not arise. In other words, if he is an authorized occupant, he may be required to pay rent but not damages. The quality of occupation and the quality of recompense for the use and occupation of the public premises go hand in hand and are interdependent". 50. The rent was being fixed on one of the three yardsticks, i.e. (i) as per the document of lease, (ii) as per the contract between the parties, or (iii) as per the grant. If the arrears of rent remained to be recovered from the tenant, there is a power to recover the same even from the heirs and legal representatives under Section 13 of the Act, and if the rent or damages are not paid, they can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 14 and an unlawful occupant can be prosecuted under Section 11 of the Act. This being the position the idea of standard rent was foreign to the Public Premises Act. 51. A reference was made to the rules which are fram....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment was in the context of eviction from Public Premises and not concerning fixation of standard rent, and therefore, the observations in para 10 thereof will have to be looked into from that point of view. 55. The submission of Mr. Rawal was that an exclusionary clause has to be read strictly. In the present case Section 2 (f) read with Section 15 (d) of the Act dealt with the definition of rent and exclusion of proceedings for recovery of rent by way of Civil suit, and there was no non-obstante clause in the MRC Act. In this context, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai reported in [2005 (10) SCC 760]. In that matter, after examining the scheme of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and relying upon the dicta of the constitution bench in Dhulabhai Vs. State of M.P. reported [AIR 1969 SC 78], this Court had held that a suit for declaration as to the succession to a public trust was not maintainable, since the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts Act had exclusive jurisdiction. A similar approach was suggested in the present case. 56. It was then submitted that the MRC Act excludes some tenants from the protection of the ren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect to the maintainability of the Standard Rent Application by the occupants of these premises under the MRC Act. Mr. Hansaria, learned counsel for the appellants points out that this issue has not been decided by this Court so far. 59. Before we deal with the rival submissions, we may state once again that under the general law of landlord and tenant also, the landlord had the obligation to charge only the rent agreed under the lease agreement, and to carry out the repairs to the property which were necessary, failing which the tenant would be entitled to carry out the same and deduct the expenses from the rent [see Section 108 (B) (f) of the Transfer of Property Act]. As we have noted earlier, due to the problems of the scarcity of accommodation following the Second World War, special protection was made available to the tenants against unjustified increases in rent and ejectment from the tenancies. This protection was reflected in the provisions of various Rent Control Acts such as the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 which governed the premises of the appellant for all purposes prior to the coming into force of the Public Premises Act, 1971. When the Public Premises Act was en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ink Mfg. Co. (supra) that the Public Premises Act has a very limited application, whereas the Rent Act is an Act with much wider application than the Public Premises Act. In the present case, the subjects of fixation of Standard Rent and restoration of essential services by the landlord are covered under the MRC Act, but in no way under the Public Premises Act. The Public Premises Act, in fact does not claim to cover these subjects. As held by the Constitution Bench in Kesoram Industries Ltd. (supra), the Court has to look at the substance of the matter. Regard must be had to the enactment as a whole, to its main objects and scope of its provisions. Incidental and superficial encroachments are to be disregarded. Eviction and recovery of arrears of rent are alone covered under the Public Premises Act. The subject of fixation of rent is different and independent from eviction as held by the division bench of the Karnataka High in Bharath Gold Mines. That being the position, there is no conflict between the MRC Act and the Public Premises Act when it comes to the provisions in the MRC Act with respect to fixation of Standard Rent and requiring the landlord to maintain the essential s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the subjects, amongst others concerning, `(a) the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, and (d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 7 or damages payable under sub-section (2), or interest payable under sub-section (2A), of that section'. Therefore, to that extent the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. The actions which are covered under the Public Premises Act are concerning eviction of unauthorised occupants and recovery of arrears of rent. The Act however does not claim to speak anything about the fixation of Standard Rent or maintenance of essential services. For these purposes no remedy is provided under the Public Premises Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for these remedies cannot be held to be ousted. 64. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that if the submission of the appellant is accepted it will mean permitting proceedings before the Court of Estate Officer for recovery of arrears of rent, and before the Rent Controller for fixation of standard rent, and the same is not desirable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the tenants of the public premises, though for the purposes of eviction of unauthorised occupants and recovery of arrears of rent, the proceedings will lie only under the Public Premises Act. It is also to be noted that the proceedings for the recovery of arrears of rent are at the instance of landlord, whereas those for fixation of standard rent are at the instance of the tenant. Both these proceedings are quite different in their prayers and scope of consideration. The fact that the proceeding for one purpose is provided under one statute can not lead to an automatic conclusion that the remedy for a different purpose provided under another competent statute becomes unavailable. Expectations from Public Bodies - 66. Although the question of maintainability of the Standard Rent Applications concerning the public premises is only coming up now before this Court, we have referred to the views of Courts when different facets of this issue came up for consideration from time to time. The exemption from the Bombay Rent Act to the government premises was upheld in Rampratap Jaidayal (supra), on the basis of the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactment which wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter of policy involving public interest the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final." The guidelines dated 30.5.2002 are not directions under section 21 of the LIC Act. 68. We have referred to the general guidelines dated 30.5.2002, laid down by the Central Government in this behalf. Guidelines no. 2(i) and 2 (iii) are relevant for our purpose. Guideline no. 2 (i) states that the provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1971 should be used primarily to evict totally unauthorised occupants. Guideline No. 2 (iii) specifically states that it will be open to the public authority to secure periodic revision of rent in terms of the provisions of the Rent Control Act in each State, or to move under genuine grounds under the Rent Control Act for resuming possession. Thus, these guidelines specifically recognise the relevance of certain provisions of Rent Control Acts for their application to the properties covered under the Public Premises Act. It is stated in the guidelines that the public authorities would have rights similar to private landlords under the Rent Control Acts in dealing with genuine legal tenants. It follows that the public authorities will have the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve there is no conflict between this provisions of the MRC Act with those under the Public Premises Act, when it comes to fixation of standard rent and restoring the essential supplies. Otherwise it will expose the provisions of Public Premises Act to the vires of unreasonableness also. The interpretation canvassed by the respondents is not in consonance with the welfare state that is contemplated under the Indian Constitution. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court does not lay down the correct position in law. As against that we approve the approach and the interpretation adopted by the Karnataka High Court in Bharath Gold Mines Ltd. (supra). 72. In the circumstances, we hold as follows:- (a) The provisions of the Maharastra Rent Control Act, 1999 with respect to fixation of Standard Rent for premises, and requiring the landlord not to cut off or withhold essential supply or service, and to restore the same when necessary, are not in conflict with or repugnant to any of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (b) The provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1971 shall ....