Punjab National Bank Thru. Its. ... vs Smt. Aminabai Sheikh Mohsinbhai ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1086 Bom

 Judgment                                          1                                wp2756.08.odt




                  
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2756  OF 2008


 Punjab National Bank,
 A Body Corporate constituted under the 
 Banking Companies (Acquisition of 
 Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its 
 Registered Office at 7, Bhikaji Cama
 Palace, New Delhi through its Branch
 Manager, Punjab National Bank, 
 Gandhibagh, Nagpur.                                                   ....  PETITIONER.

                                     //  VERSUS //

 1. Smt. Aminabai W/o. Sheikh Mohsinbhai
    (Dead) by Legal Representatives :

      1. Zoeb S/o. Mohsinbhai Amin,
         Aged Major, Occ. Business, 

      2. Jabir  S/o. Mohsin bhai Amin,
         Aged Major, Occ. Business, 

      3. Zaminbhai  S/o. Mohsinbhai Amin,
         Aged Major, Occ. Business, 

      4. Juzerbhai  S/o. Mohsinbhai Amin,
         Aged Major, Occ. Business, 

      5. Zejrabai w/o. Abdul Hussain Haidi,
         Aged Major, Occ. Household, 

      6. Rizwana w/o. Hakumiddinbhai
         Calcuttawala, Aged Major, 
         Occ. Household, 

      7. Zubedabai W/o. Saituddinbhai Fidvi,
         Aged : Major, Occ. Household.

          All residents of Chhaoni, Sadar, Nagpur. 
                                                                    .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                                  . 




::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2017                           ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 21:08:23 :::
  Judgment                                                 2                                 wp2756.08.odt




  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri A.C.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 None for the Respondents. 
 ___________________________________________________________________

                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MARCH 27, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner Bank (tenant) has challenged the orders passed

by the subordinate authorities fixing the fair rent under Clauses 4 and 5 of

Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order,

1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Order, 1949").

3. The petitioner bank occupied about 2000 sq.ft. on first floor of the

building owned by the respondents/ landlord, as per the agreement dated 7 th

December, 1976, the rent being 0.80ps per sq.ft. The landlord filed

application under Clauses 4 and 5 of the Rent Control Order, 1949 praying

that the fair rent of the premises be fixed at Rs.10/- per sq.ft. The House

Rent Controller by the order passed on 29 th March, 2005 partly accepted the

claim of the landlord and fixed the fair rent @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. and directed

the tenant to pay the amount of fair rent from the date of filing of the

application. The tenant as well as landlord filed appeals under Clause 21 of

the Rent Control Order, 1949 which are dismissed by the impugned order.

Judgment 3 wp2756.08.odt

4. The learned advocate for the tenant has submitted that the

landlord has not been able to establish the claim of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. and the

evidence on record shows that the fair rent of the premises at the most could

have been determined @ Rs.3/- per sq.ft. To support the submission, the

learned advocate for the tenant has pointed out that Canara Bank which

occupied 3800 sq.ft. on first floor of the building situated in the locality paid

rent at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.ft. It is pointed out that Life Insurance

Corporation occupied 5500 sq.ft. in a building and paid rent @ Rs.14,000/-

per month, the premises being situated in the same locality. Relying on the

above instances and the evidence of another witness-Anilkumar Shankarlal

Mulchandani who deposed that he occupied the premises admeasuring 500

sq.ft. in the same locality and paid rent @ Rs.500/- per month and

maintenance charges @ Rs.1000/- per month, it is submitted that the

conclusions of the subordinate authorities are unsustainable.

5. After examining the material and the documents placed on

record of the petition and after going through the impugned orders, I find

that after considering the documentary evidence placed on record, the House

Rent Controller concluded that in the locality where the suit premises are

situated, the rent for the ground floor premises varies between Rs.6/- per

sq.ft to Rs.8.69 per sq.ft. and for the premises on second floor it was around

Rs.3.30 per sq.ft. and on the basis of "law of average" the House Rent

Controller determined the fair rent @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft.

Judgment 4 wp2756.08.odt

6. The learned Additional Collector has independently examined

the documentary evidence on record and has concurred with the conclusions

of the House Rent Controller.

7. Though much is argued on behalf of the petitioner/ tenant that

considering the rent which Canara Bank and Life Insurance Corporation of

India were paying, the fair rent could not have been determined more than

Rs.3/- per sq.ft., the other factors like condition of premises, other facilities

available in the premises and the value as per the utility have not been

brought on record by the tenant. The subordinate authorities have

determined the fair rent applying the proper formula after considering the

documentary evidence on the record. It cannot be said that the conclusions

of the subordinate authorities suffer from any illegality or perversity. I see no

reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

8. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to

bear their own costs.

The amount deposited by the petitioner, if not withdrawn, shall

be given to the respondents along with interest on it, if any.

JUDGE

RRaut..