TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 1263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant is a firm of Advocates and Solicitors, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3/-. 6. The appellant therefore asked for the break 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, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of fixation of standard rent of the premises of the appellant, 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 pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or default on the part of the lessee, his servants or agents, he is bound to 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge number of properties in the city of Mumbai and elsewhere. Earlier, the relationship 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct relating to five subjects, namely (i) control of rent, (ii) repairs of certain premises, (iii) 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 conditi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....longing to or vested in an university established by any law for the time being in force Provided that, before issuing any direction 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 exempti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act , 1947, or the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Retnt Control Order, 1949 issued 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 provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r make an order directing the tenant to deposit in court periodically such amount as it considers proper as interim standard rent, or at the option of the tenant, an order to pay 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 occupati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) who desires to have, at his own cost, any other essential supply or service for the premises in his occupation, the tenant may apply to the Municipal or any other authority authorized in this behalf, for 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) any Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924); and 3) in relation to the [National Capital Territory 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... comply with the order of eviction [on or before, the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of its publication under sub-section(1) whichever is later,] the estate officer or any other officer duly authorized by the estate officer in this behalf 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-sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e guidelines have a statutory force under Section 21 of the LIC Act. They require LIC to charge reasonable rent, and therefore the Bombay High Court has in Writ Petition No.2436 of 2003 (Persis Kothawala Versus LIC) held that these guidelines are binding on LIC. On that basis, the standard 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 15 of the Public Premises Act as follows:- "Apart from that, in view of the overriding effect of the said Act of 1971, an occupant of the public premises cannot claim protection under the Rent Control Legislation in as much as section 15 of the said Act of 1971 ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts 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 Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or adjudication of disputes between landlords and tenants and the procedure which has to be followed in such proceedings. The Rent Control Act can, therefore, be said to be a special statute regulating the relationship of landlord and tenant in the Union Territory of Delhi. (ii) The Public Premises Act makes provision 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." ......
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the Slum Clearance Authority. It is to obviate such difficulty that the amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act had been brought in. In that context it was observed in para 20 as follows:- "20. ........When two or more laws operate in the same field and each contains a non-obstante clause stating that its provisions will 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 Marke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subject matter of controversy in our case is with respect to the fixation of standard rent, which is not covered under the provision in the Public Premises Act. On the other hand the same is very much covered under the MRC Act. The overriding effect given to Public Premises Act cannot mean overriding with reference to a matter which was not 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. & An....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of this Court in paragraph 8 and 9 are relevant for our purpose which read as follows:- 8. ...... So far as the Premises Act is concerned it operates in a very limited field in that it applies only to a limited nature of premises belonging only to particular sets of individuals, a particular set of juristic persons like companies, corporations or the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf or by any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust that the premises are required for occupation for the purposes of the trust; or" The Public Premises Act creates a forum for eviction of the unauthorised occupants and provides for a special procedure for recovery of the premises from such occupants. Unauthorised 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....current List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting 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:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ublic Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act 1973, were repugnant to the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952. The appellant was being prosecuted under sections 161, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The Court referred to earlier decisions including the one in Deep Chand Vs. State 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 repe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....must be substantially on the same subject to attract the article." In the event of two Acts governing a common field, whether both can apply for different purposes- 39. There could be provisions for certain purposes in one statute, and for another purpose in another statute, though both govern the common field. Thus, in Krishna Distt. Coop. Mktg. Society Ltd. Vijayawada vs. N.V. Purnachandra Rao & Ors. [1987 (4) SCC 99], 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kishan Bhageria & Ors. [1988 Supp. SCC 82], the question was whether a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could be sought by the employees covered under the Rajasthan Shops and Establishments Act, 1958. This Court held that it would be so. In a similar way in Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr. [2004 (2) SCC 553], this Court held in the context of Electricity Act 1910, and Assam 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht be drawn to the very first where the Supreme Court emphasizes the fact that the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and this presumption arises from the fact that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people and that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and therefore it must always be presumed that discriminations are based on adequate grounds......" 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed) What this Court observed further per Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he than was) in paragraph 24 is relevant for our purpose:- "24. The field of letting and eviction of tenants is normally governed by the Rent Act. The Port Trust is statutorily exempted from the operation of the Rent Act on the basis of its public/governmental character. The legislative assumption or expectation as noted in the observations 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remises of public authorities or subletees, or employees who have ceased to be in their service and thus ineligible for occupation of the premises. (ii) The provisions of the P.P.(E) Act, 1971 should not be resorted to either with a commercial motive or to secure vacant possession of the premises in order to accommodate their own employees, where the premises were in occupation of the original tenants to whom the premises were let either by the public authorities or the persons from whom 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 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Rawal appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant had agreed to 35% rise in the rent every five years. Section 7 of the Public Premises Act provides for payment of rent by the authorized tenant, and makes a provision for damages for the unauthorized occupation. A hearing is provided for recovery of the arrears of rent and the damages under that section, and the order, if any, passed against the occupant is appealable under Section 9 of the Act. The order is given finality under Section 10 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Premises Act applies, the Delhi Rent Control Act will stand superseded. He then referred to Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh (dead) thr. its Lrs. [2010 (2) SCC 15] where in para 29 this court has held that the Delhi Rent Control Act and the Maharashtra Act are pari-materia, and therefore, on that footing he submitted that by applying the judgment in Jain Ink Mfg. Co. (supra), Maharashtra Act also gets eclipsed by the Public Premises Act. We have already referred to the judgment in Jain Ink Mfg. Co. (supra). The judgment 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 m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been ousted under Section 15 of the Public Premises Act in this behalf. It is also already held by this Court in the cases of Kaiser-I-Hind and Crawford Bayley (supra) that as far as the issue of eviction of unauthorised occupants from Public Premises is concerned, the authorities under the Public Premises Act alone will have jurisdiction to deal therewith, and no proceedings will lie either under the Bombay Rent Act or the MRC Act. The question in the present matter is with 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 Tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of three Judges of this Court has laid down that whenever repugnancy is alleged, what has to be first examined is whether the two legislations cover or relate to the same subject matter. The test for that is to find out the dominant intention of the two legislations. If the subject matters covered by the legislations are different, merely because the two legislations refer to some allied or cognate subjects they do not cover the same field. 62. We have noted the observations of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in M/s Jain 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apply these two tests and examine the scheme of the Public Premises Act, it will be seen that section 10 of the Act does give a finality to the orders passed by the Estate Officers or the Appellate Officers, and states that `the same shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding, and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act'. Section 15 of the Act specifically states that 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trial Disputes Act, 1947, in the Labour Courts constituted under that Act, since similar provision is not made under the said Bombay Act. The MRC Act being a welfare statute like the labour laws is enacted after considering the requirements of the tenants, and contains the provisions for fixation of standard rent and for restoring essential services and supplies when necessary. The public premises are not specifically exempted from the applicability of the MRC Act. That being so, there is no reason to hold that these remedies will not be available to 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 provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant case, the activities of the respondent/L.I.C are controlled by the LIC Act. Section 21 of the LIC Act lays down that the Corporation shall be guided by the directions issued by the Central Government. This Section reads as follows:- "21. Corporation to be guided by the directions of Central Government- In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Corporation shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may give to it in writing; and if any question arises whether a direction relates to a matter 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 periodi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son to insist upon such an interpretation which will deny to the tenants of the public premises, a remedy and a forum which are otherwise available to the tenants under the MRC Act,. 71. In view of what is stated above, the interpretation as canvassed by the respondents will deny the appropriate remedy to the petitioner and the like tenants, to have the rent of their premises being fixed by filing a Standard Rent Application, and also to get the essential services restored in the event of any difficulty. There is no reason to accept any such interpretation because as stated above 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 approv....