Skip to main content

Blatant misuse Section 8 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, to fix Standard Rent

 

 1.     Recently, I have come across a Case of my Cousin, where Landlord has filed a Section 8 Application under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, calling upon the Court to fix Standard Rent (essentially seeking huge increase in Rent), on the grounds that Suit premises is situate in prime commercial area and Rent has increased phenomenally in the immediate vicinity of Suit premises.

2.     And I am told that Landlord is filing many such Applications against his tenants, and the Small Causes Courts are entertaining such Applications, and are happily granting Reliefs to the Landlords; and Tenants are compelled to pay sky rocketing increased Rent, and that too, under the umbrella of Rent Control Legislation. 

3.     And therefore, I dwelled upon the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and looked thru the history of Rent Control Legislations in India, and in particularly, the history of Rent Control Legislations in Maharashtra, or to say, of the Bombay Province. 

4.     And then, I looked thru the relevant provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and I was shocked to find that Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, do not provide for fixation of Standard Rent on the grounds that Suit premises is situate in prime commercial area and Rent has increased phenomenally in the immediate vicinity of Suit premises. 

5.     And, therefore, the Small Causes Courts have NO jurisdiction to entertain any such Application u/s 8, and any such Application to fix Standard Rent, on the grounds that Suit premises is situate in prime commercial area and Rent has increased phenomenally in the immediate vicinity of Suit premises, deserves to be dismissed at the outset, with heavy costs. 

6.     That, Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, spells out the grounds under which the Application for fixation of Standard Rent, may be preferred, either by the Landlord or may be by the Tenant himself. 

7.     That, Section 7(14) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, defines the expression “Standard Rent”. According to that definition, the Standard Rent means: (i) The Rent fixed by the Court; or (ii) by the Rent Controller. [Section 7(14)(a)]. (iii) If the Rent is not fixed by the Court, then, the Standard Rent would be such Rent at which the subject premises was let out as on 1.10.1987. (iv) If the premises are let prior to 1.10.1987, then, the Standard Rent would be such Rent plus 5% increase, at which the premises were let out immediately prior to 1.10.1987. [Section 7(14)(b)(i) and (ii)]. 

8.     Now coming to Section 8 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, it sets out the grounds on which the Application for fixation of Standard Rent may be preferred. 

9.     Clause (a) of Section 8(1) carves out the first ground to fix the Standards Rent. It says, where the Court is satisfied that there is no sufficient evidence to ascertain the Rent at which the premises were let out in cases enumerated u/s 7(14)(b)(i) and (ii);

10. Clause (b) of Section 8(1) carves out the Second ground to fix the Standards Rent. It says, where premises have been let out at one point of time, as a whole or in parts, and in later point of time, in whole or in part; 

11. Clause (c) of Section 8(1) carves out the third ground to fix the Standards Rent. It says, where premises have been let out for free or at a nominal rent; or for some consideration in addition to Rent; 

12. Clause (d) of Section 8(1) carves out the fourth ground to fix the Standards Rent. It says, where there is any dispute between the Landlord and the Tenant regarding the amount of Standard Rent. 

13. These are the only four grounds available, for to prefer an Application u/s 8, to fix Standard Rent. 

14. Thus, it may be seen that ground that “Suit premises is situate in prime commercial area and Rent has increased phenomenally in the immediate vicinity of Suit premises”, is not a ground available to approach the Court u/s 8, to fix Standard Rent. 

15. In such situations, the Landlords are only entitled for increase in Rent as provided u/ss 11 and 12 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 

16. If any such Application is filed u/s 8 by the Landlord, then, the Tenant may file an Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, calling upon the Court to Reject / dismiss said Application, for failure to disclose Cause of action. In such Application, the Landlord may be call upon to show, under which provision of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the Court can exercise its jurisdiction and fix Standard Rent on the grounds that “Suit premises is situate in prime commercial area and Rent has increased phenomenally in the immediate vicinity of Suit premises”. 

17. That, such Application u/s 8 to fix Standard Rent, is a blatant misuse of machinery of Law by Landlords; and entertaining such Applications, defeats the very spirit and purpose of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

 

 

Sandeep Jalan

Adv.

https://www.litigationplatform.com/

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Commercial Courts / Suits - Pleadings and Procedure

The Commercial Courts, Act, 2015 – A broad framework In order to ensure speedy disposal of disputes which arises from commercial transactions involving high value, the Parliament of India has come out with a unique legislation namely, The Commercial Courts, Act, 2015; wherein Commercial Courts / Divisions are to be constituted in the existing district Courts and in High Courts; and wherein disputes arising from specified commercial dealings involving claim of Rs.1.00 Crore or above would be adjudicated by these newly constituted commercial Courts / Divisions. By virtue of recent Amendments, the limit of Rs.1.00 crore has been reduced to Rs.3.00 Lakhs; and accordingly claims relating to commercial disputes involving Rs.3.00 Lakhs could now be maintainable under this special regime.  And accordingly, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is substantially amended, wherein new Order XIII-A and XV-A are inserted, apart from new Order XI, Sections 35 for costs, Verification of ...

Leading Evidence during trial

1.       In case where the accused refused to plead guilty of the offence to which he is charged with, and claims to be tried, the Court calls upon the Prosecution / Complainant to lead all the evidences he has in support of his case. 2.       In criminal trial, the evidence are required to be led by the complainant and / or their witnesses by stepping into the witness box and illustrating / demonstrating to what they have witnessed. The Complainant is to examine before the Court, himself, and all other witnesses, who are “witness” to the crime, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused named in the complaint. This examination of himself and other prosecution witnesses is called “Examination – in – Chief. 3.       Giving evidence of facts is critical to any trial, be it civil trial or criminal trial. And therefore, it becomes imperative to understand the dynamics of evidence in legal sens...

Form II under Rule 6 of Rules, 2006, framed under the impugned Act

Impugned Provision / other anomaly Breach of Section / Article FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the impugned Act Section 3 – Explanation II; Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the impugned Act. Principles of natural justice. FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)     To The Court of Magistrate .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... Application under section ........................ of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)            SHOWETH: That the application under section.................of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is b...