To what extent Bombay Port trust can claim exemption from rent Act?

 By its very nature, rent legislation covers the relationship between landlord and tenant. It does not deal with creation of tenancy but it places either a restriction or embargo on the right of the landlord under the general law relating to revision of rents and eviction. The Rent Act also deals with the question of charging of rent and to that extent it also encroaches upon the field of general law as to the creation of tenancy because creation may be according to general law but that part of the transaction where the tenant agrees to pay a certain amount of rent will be regulated and controlled by the provisions of the Rent Act. Unless therefore it is shown that in the Major Port Trusts Act there are similar provisions as to the control, regulation or revision of rent and relating to eviction, obviously the said theory and occupied field cannot have any place whatsoever. We, therefore, reject this submission.

76. In view of the aforesaid finding the appellant trust will stand governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. To the extent permissible therein, the appellant trust can certainly increase the rent periodically and the occupants of the plots on whatever terms and conditions at present will also have to abide by the same. We also hold that the appellant trust cannot claim any exemption from the provisions of the Rent Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal Nos. 258, 313-327 of 1991

Decided On: 01.08.2000

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay  Vs. Jayantilal Dharamsey and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.J. Pandya and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation : AIR 2001 Bom 26

Print Page

Whether tenant of bombay port trust is entitled to get protection of rent law?

As stated above, in the present case, since beginning, the subject premises are owned by the local authority and, therefore, excluded from the application of the Rent Control Act, that is the distinguishing factor in the present case from this Judgment of Dr. Preeti Bhatt Vs. Central Bank of India (Supra).

43. Thus, the position, which emerges from the above discussion, is that, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhas H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Issuance Co. Ltd. (Supra), was in the particular facts and circumstances of the case, namely, the Appellant being 'tenant' of the private landlord and, therefore, enjoying protection under the Rent Control Act. The status of being a 'tenant' of the Public Company was thrust upon him. Hence, it was held that, such protection, which the Appellant was enjoying under the Rent Control Act, cannot be taken by the Public Premises Eviction Act, after it came into effect.

44. As against it, in the facts of the present case, the Respondent was, since beginning, the 'tenant' of the public premises belonging to the local authority, like Port Trusts, which were excluded from the coverage of the Rent Control Act and hence, not enjoyed protection under the Rent Act. Therefore, Respondent cannot get benefit of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhas H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5678 of 2015

Decided On: 03.05.2018

 The Board of Trustee of the Port of Mumbai Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

Citation: 2018(5) MHLJ 754

Print Page

Whether bombay rent Act is applicable to land belonging to government or local authority?

In Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay [1962] Su. 3 S.C.R. 461 this Court took the view that if the Government or a local authority wants to evict a person from land belonging to the Government or a local authority, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act do not come in the way. For the same reason, the suit for ejectment does not have to be filed in the Court of Small Causes as required by the Rent Control Act but in the City Civil Court. If the original lessees took on lease not only the land but also the building, it is not open to their assignees to claim that the ownership of the Government extended only to the land and not to the buildings. 

We can only observe that if the intention of the Legislature is that the protection should be given to the sub-lessee against the lessee in a building taken on lease by the lessee from the Government or a local authority, it is for the Legislature concerned to make appropriate amendments in the Bombay Rent Act and it is not open for us to rewrite the provisions of Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground of any such intention as suggested by Dr. Chitale.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4248 of 1986

Decided On: 04.05.1988

Nagji Vallabhji and Company Vs. Meghji Vijpar and Company and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.S. Pathak, C.J. and M.H. Kania, J.

Citations: 1988 AIR 1313, 1988 SCR (3) 906

Print Page