[Maharashtra Rent Control Act] Court Can Fix Interim Standard Rent Only In A Rent Recovery Suit: Bombay High Court

Justice Anil S. Kilor of the Nagpur bench set aside trial court’s order fixing interim rent of a shop premises in a suit for fixation of standard rent.

“the authority to direct the tenant to deposit such amount of rent forthwith in the Court as the Court considers to be reasonably due to the landlord, or at the option of the tenant, directing to pay to the landlord such amount thereof as it may specify, can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit for recovery of the rent. The said power is conditional to the suit being for recovery of the rent, meaning thereby such powers cannot be exercised in any other suit except in a suit for recovery of rent between the landlord and the tenant”.

The court was seized with a writ petition by Perfect Auto of Amravati challenging the interim rent fixed by the trial court for its premises. The respondent is the owner of the shop premises.

In 2016, the respondent filed a suit under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for fixation of standard rent and permitted increase praying for fixation of Rs 10,000/- per month as cash.

The petitioner opposed the suit. The respondent applied for interim rent under section 8(4) of the Act 1999. The trial Court allowed the application and fixed the interim standard rent at Rs 4000/- per month. Later, the respondent’s revision petition under section 34(4) of the Act oh is missed.

Petitioner submitted that the respondent’s suit is only for fixation of standard rent and not for recovery of rent. Hence, the prerequisites for fixation of interim rent under the Act has not fulfilled was not maintainable.

The court noted that section 11(4) of the Bombay Rents Hotel And Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is pari materia to Section 8(4)(a) of the Act of 1999.

The court relied on the full bench judgement in Jamnadas Motilal Vanwari v. Ishwaribai Tejandas Alwani, and stated that the trial court can fix interim standard rent only in a suit for recovery of rent.

Since the landowner’s application was in a suit for fixation of standard rent and not in a recovery of rent, the court held that the trial did not have jurisdiction to fix interim standard rent.

Thus, the court quashed the trial court’s order fixing interim rent as well as revisional Court's order upholding it.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 1023 of 2020

Case Title – M/s. Perfect Auto v. Santosh Narsingdasji Agrawal,

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 116