LAWS(SC)-2011-9-61

BANATWALA AND COMPANY Vs. LIC OF INDIA

Decided On September 19, 2011
BANATWALA AND COMPANY Appellant
V/S
L.I.C OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave raises a question as to whether the provisions for fixation of standard rent, and provisions prescribing other obligations for the landlord such as maintenance of essential services under the concerned Rent Control Act viz. Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as in the present case (hereinafter referred to as the MRC Act), are applicable in respect of public premises owned by a corporation such as the first respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C in short) which is otherwise covered by the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Public Premises Act).

(2.) The appellant 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.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, the respondents will not enforce the increase in the rent that was proposed through letter dated 14.7.2001. Thereupon the writ petition was withdrawn. Subsequently, the respondents sent a reduced bill of Rs. 9144/-per month which included basic rent of Rs. 6181/- plus municipal taxes and water charges of Rs. 355/- and misc. ^charges of Rs. 100/-. We place the above clause IV (e) on record. It reads as follows: