MANIBHAI HATHIBHAI PATEL Vs. CWEARBUTHNOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the owners of an immoveable property known as "Bhadran Bhuvan" situate at Tardeo Junction, which they purchased on May 10, 1.940. The immoveable property consists inter alia of several shops, shops Nos. 10 to 14 whereof are the subject-matter of these proceedings. It is not stated in the petition what was the position of these shops after May 10, 1940, up to the time that the same came to be occupied by the respective parties, the only averments in the petition in this behalf which were considered relevant by the draftsman of the petition being that shop No. 10 was let out to one Sakhavat Hussein on or about June 1, 1943, at a rental of Rs, 80 per month, that the front portion of shop No. 11 was given to one Tukaram Tavde for occupation by leave and license of the petitioners on or about June 1, 1943, Tukaram Tavde paying a compensation for such use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 35 per month, that shop No. 12 was let out to one Ramchandra & Co. on or about November 1, 1944, at a rental of Rs. 80 per month, that shop No. 13 was let out to Messrs, Friendly Stores on or about May 1, 1943, on a rental of Rs. 80 per month, and that shop No. 14 was let out to one Khodadad R. Irani on or about September 1, 1943, at a rental of Rs. 115 per month. The petition does not state who were the tenants, if at all, between May 10, 1940, and the various dates above mentioned when the occupation of these various parties commenced. After setting out the parties in occupation of the several shops and when they came to occupy the same as aforesaid, the petition proceeds to state that in about December, 1943, a joint application was made by Messrs. Khodadad E. Irani. Messrs. Friendly Stores, Tukaram Tavde and one P.D. Yajnik, who was the then occupant of shop No. 12, to the respondent for fixing the standard rent of the premises respectively occupied by them but that the application was dismissed by the respondent on or about January 3, 1944, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to decide the same. Nothing further appears to have transpired until November 21, 1945, when the present occupants of the shops Nos. 10 to 14 abovementioned made a joint application to the respondent, the terms whereof are relevant to note. They stated that they were occupying a shop galas Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of a big shop situate in "Bhadran Bhuvan" and belonging to the petitioners, that the said shops which were numbered by the petitioners conveniently as shops Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 formed a single tenement in. September; 1940, and prior to that the rent charged for that single tenement which was let out to one Sorab B. Tata was Us, 120 per month which Mas the standard rent of the tenement, that the petitioners had, with a view to circumvent the provisions of the law, got that tenement divided by temporary (kutcha) wooden partitions into five tenements and had let out the same to them charging them respectively Rs. 80, Rs. 35, Rs. 80, Rs. 80 and Rs. 115 making in all Rs. 390, and that according to them the standard rent of the galas in their occupation came to Rs. 30, Rs. 10, Rs. 20, Rs. 20 and Rs. 30, respectively making in all Rs. 110. They, therefore, requested the respondent to institute necessary inquiries in the matter and fix up the standard rent of the tenements according to law.

(2.) On receipt of the application dated November 21, 1945, the respondent wrote to the first petitioner on December 6, 1945, requesting him to see him on any working day with all relevant documents, as he would inquire into the charges being made as rents for the shops in the said building. The first petitioner did not appear before the respondent by December 31, 1945, and the respondent wrote to him inter alia on the said date intimating to him that as he had not complied with his request to see him in the matter of the charges being made as rents for the shops in the said building, he, the respondent, proposed to fix the standard rents as noted therein and would do so unless definite information regarding the rent at which the premises were let in September, 1940, was produced by him before January 15, 1946.

(3.) The petitioners thereafter appeared before the respondent on or about April 3, 1946, when the application came up for hearing. Certain preliminary objections were then raised by the petitioners objecting to the jurisdiction of the respondent to determine the standard rent of the shop and also contending that the matters comprised in the application had been finally disposed of by the respondent on January 3, 1944. The preliminary objections were overruled by the respondent and the respondent continued proceedings to determine the standard rent of the shops. The hearing of the application was postponed from time to time and was finally fixed on June 28, 1946. In the meantime the petitioners filed this petition on June 27, 1946, and obtained a rule from my brother Chagla calling upon the respondent to show cause why a writ of certiorari or a writ of prohibition should not be issued against him or an order and injunction under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, should not be issued against him.