MOHANLAL SITARAM LADDHA Vs. RAMABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the appellate Court under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947. The appellate Court has dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act by its order and judgment dated 5th February, 1979. The petitioner, who is original tenant has approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said order passed by the appellate Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of this case are as follows :- the petitioner is the original tenant of an open land bearing C.T.S. No. 398-A. The petitioner was paying Rs. 232-54 as rent to the landlords the respondents herein. The petitioner claims to be the assignee of one Karode, who executed a registered lease deed in favour of the respondents on 6th June, 1947 wherein the open land in the above survey number and measuring 17343 sq. ft. was leased to said Karode for a period of 51 years for Rs. 3,599/- per annum. Respondents had filed a suit against said Karode being Suit No. 551 of 1956 in which the standard rent of the said premises was fixed at Rs. 299.94. No purpose of the lease was specified in the deed executed between the respondents and said Karode. However, the petitioner states that in fact Karode had intended to build a theatre on the said land. The petitioner further states that the lease rights of Karode were acquired by the Bank and the petitioner herein purchased the said rights from the Bank and thus he became the purchaser and tenant of the land in question. He states that the rent paid by him was Rs. 299.94 till the Pune Municipal Corporation acquired 3403 sq. ft. from the said land and thereafter the respondents reduced the rent to Rs. 232.54.

(3.) THIS application was contested by the respondent on various grounds that the standard rent was already fixed at Rs. 299.94 in Suit No. 551 of 1956 and it would operate as res judicata on the petitioner. It was also alleged by the respondents that as the petitioner had filed Misc. Application No. 404 of 1970 and that was also being dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, the further application i.e. present application is also barred. It was disputed that the rent payable was not excessive. Further contention seems to have been raised not in the written statement but pressed in the arguments before the trial Court that the lease-deed being in regard to the open land and the whole lease-deed does not show that for what purpose it was leased out. The purpose was ascertained as being the construction of the theatre. It appears that the petitioner had no personal knowledge about the lease and it was stated that the lease was not for the purpose of the items as mentioned in Section 6 of the Bombay Rent Act and construction of theatre which was asserted by the petitioner as the purpose cannot fall within the category of permitted lease to attract the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. It appears that the learned trial Judge ultimately tried all the points, which he has raised that he had found that the alleged lease was not for the purpose of residence, education, business, trade or storage and the present application filed by the petitioner, therefore, will not be maintainable at all. On the other point, the learned Judge of the trial Court found that the application was barred by the earlier decision in Suit No. 551 of 1956. He also found that the present application is barred in view of the dismissal of similar application No. 404 of 1970 which was dismissed for default under Order 9 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. On these findings, the learned Judge further found that the standard rent which in this case will be ultimately fixed must be the agreed rent as the original plot of land admeasures 17343 sq. ft. and after the acquisition by Municipal Corporation Pune of 3403 sq. ft. of land from the said land, the agreed rent was proportionately reduced to Rs. 232.54. After recording these findings the trial Judge dismissed the application by his order and judgment dated 4th April, 1975.