Whether tenants can claim water supply from landlord if they fails to pay water charges?

Now, in order that a landlord should be held guilty under Section 24 of the Rent Act, it must be shown that the landlord has by his act or omission withheld the essential supply. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that there was a dispute between the petitioner-landlord and the tenants in regard to the water supply charges, and pending this dispute from 1974, the water charges were in arrears to the tune of about Rs. 32,552.75. It was for this reason that the Bombay Municipal Corporation cut off the water supply on 7-3-1977. The petitioner-landlord in the present case was demanding water charges at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and water charges at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month were fixed in the standard rent proceedings. Shri Rajani has contended that it was impossible for the petitioner-landlord to pay Rs. 32,000/- as the tenants were in arrears for payment of the said amount to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-landlord has omitted to pay water charges to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. There is considerable force in the argument advanced by Shri Rajani. If by non-payment of the water charges the landlord is put to helpless position, it cannot be said that the landlord has committed any act or omitted to do any act by which any essential supply has been discontinued.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appln. No. 185 of 1979

Decided On: 30.06.1980

Cajubhai Balabhai Pradhan Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.J. Rele, J.
Citation: 1982(1) BomCR 284:1982(2) RCJ573:1982(2) RCR 353

Print Page

Whether water charge are part of rent?

Perusal of the above provisions show that Sub-section (1) in addition to the standard rent and permitted increases also speaks of the terms and conditions agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant. But then the penal provision is to be found in Sub-section (2) which does not provide for the terms and conditions in the agreement between landlord and tenant. However, for interpreting provision of Section 15(2) of the Act one will have to look to the other provisions of the Act. It is essential to have harmonious construction of the provisions of this Act. Section 7(8) read with Section 12 of the Act are reproduced below:

Section 7(8). "Permitted increase " means an increase in rent permitted under the provisions of this Act.

12. Increase in rent on account of payment of rates, etc. - (1) Where a landlord is required to pay to Government or to any local authority or statutory authority in respect of any premises any fresh rate, cess, charges, tax, land assessment, ground rent of land or any other levy on lands and building, or increase in rate, cess, charges, tax, land assessment, ground rent of land or any other levy on lands and buildings, he shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act but save as otherwise expressly provided in any other law for the time being in force, be entitled to make an increase in the rent of such premises : Provided that, the increase in rent shall not exceed the amount of any such rate, cess, charges, tax land assessment, ground rent of land or any other levy on lands and buildings, as the case may be.

(2) Where the rent is inclusive of charges for electricity and water and the landlord is required to pay any increase in these charges in respect of any premises, he shall be entitled to make an increase in the rent of such premises by an amount not exceeding the additional amount payable by him in respect of such premises on account of such increase.

(3) The amount of the increase in rent recoverable from each tenant under Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall bear the same proportion as the rent payable by him in respect of his premises bears to the total amount of any such rate, cess, charges, tax, land assessment, ground rent of land or any other levy on lands and building, or increase in electricity or water charges, as the case may be.

6. Perusal of these provisions show that water charges/revised water charges have been treated by the legislature as a part of the rent. This appears to have been deliberately made by the legislature in order not to have loose end in the provision about inclusion of water charges/revised water charges into rent. Admittedly, rent can be increased and such increased rent would also fall in the category of permitted increases. Thus, I find that water charges/revised water charges become part of the rent and consequently the submission made by Advocate Shri Dhumale will have to be turned down.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

W.P. No. 2821 of 2008

Decided On: 03.07.2008

Ravindra D. Ahirkar Vs.  Ravikishore S/o Ramkisanji Pashine and Anr.

Print Page

Whether eviction decree can be passed against tenant if he fails to pay water charges?

By notice dated 4-6-2001, demand of revised water charges for the period from 1-8-2000 to 31-5-2001 was made. The notices demanding water charges were received on 9-12-2000 and 2-3-2001. Even if these two dates i.e. 9-12-2000 and 2-3-2001 are taken as due dates, there is default on the part of the tenant for aggregate period of three months and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to issue quit notice to the tenant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

W.P. No. 2821 of 2008

Decided On: 03.07.2008

Ravindra D. Ahirkar Vs.  Ravikishore S/o Ramkisanji Pashine and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.B. Chaudhari, J.

Citation: 2008(5) MHLJ 955

Print Page

Whether landlord is justified to discontinue water supply to tenants if they fail to pay water charges?

Now, in order that a landlord should be held guilty under Section 24 of the Rent Act, it must be shown that the landlord has by his act or omission withheld the essential supply. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that there was a dispute between the petitioner-landlord and the tenants in regard to the water supply charges, and pending this dispute from 1974, the water charges were in arrears to the tune of about Rs. 32,552.75. It was for this reason that the Bombay Municipal Corporation cut off the water supply on 7-3-1977. The petitioner-landlord in the present case was demanding water charges at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and water charges at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month were fixed in the standard rent proceedings. Shri Rajani has contended that it was impossible for the petitioner-landlord to pay Rs. 32,000/- as the tenants were in arrears for payment of the said amount to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-landlord has omitted to pay water charges to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. There is considerable force in the argument advanced by Shri Rajani. If by non-payment of the water charges the landlord is put to helpless position, it cannot be said that the landlord has committed any act or omitted to do any act by which any essential supply has been discontinued.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appln. No. 185 of 1979

Decided On: 30.06.1980

 Cajubhai Balabhai Pradhan Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.J. Rele, J.

Citation: 1982(1)BomCR284; 1981CriLJ209

Print Page

Whether tenant can be evicted from tenanted premises on ground of non payment of water charges?

Equivalent Citation: 2008(5)MhLj955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

W.P. No. 2821 of 2008

Decided On: 03.07.2008

Appellants: Ravindra D. Ahirkar
Vs.
Respondent: Ravikishore S/o Ramkisanji Pashine and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.B. Chaudhari, J.

Tenancy - Eviction - Water Charges - Sections 7(8), 12, 15 and 15(2) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Petitioner-tenant filed present writ petition against order of his eviction from suit promises on account of water/revised water charges - Petitioner contended that Section 15(2) of Act does not permit default in payment of water charges as ground for eviction of tenant as amount of water charges cannot be constituent of permitted increases - It is further contended that notice claiming arrears of water charges for relevant period is defective because there is claim in respect of future demand for water charges and Section 15 of Act contemplates only amounts due - Held, perusal of Section 7(8), 12 and 15 of Act show that water charges/revised water charges have been treated by legislature as part of rent - This appears to have been deliberately made by legislature in order not to have loose end in provision about inclusion of water charges/revised water charges into rent - Admittedly, rent can be increased and such increased rent would also fall in category of permitted increases - Thus, water charges/revised water charges become part of rent and consequently submission made by petitioner will have to be turned down - Notice issued by respondent claiming water charges/revised water charges from petitioner is clearly for relevant period which is about a period of nine months - Demand for water charges was served on respondent on relevant dates - Therefore, even if these two dates are taken into consideration to find out whether amount of water charges are due or not, same can be termed as amount due - Hence, there is no merit in writ petition and same is dismissed accordingly

Print Page