1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETN. NO.1237/2010 Dilip B. Palandurkar -vs- Vijay B. Dhomne Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Adv. Shri Jetha for petitioner. Adv. Shri Thakkar for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 21, 2010. 1) This Court has issued notice for final disposal. Accordingly, I heard Advocate Shri Jetha for petitioner and Advocate Shri Thakkar for respondent sole. 2) Advocate Shri Jetha contends that the Courts below have refused to exercise jurisdiction available to them by not attempting to find out whether the fair rent of tenanted premises needs to be revised as per prevailing market value. He further states that in any case grant of fair rent at Rs.850/- per month must be from the date on which the application was moved by petitioner before the trial Court i.e. from April 2002. 3) Advocate Shri Thakkar points out that though trial Court has observed that issue No.2 does not survive, in fact it has recorded the negative finding on it. He further states that when standard rent is being ascertained for the first time, after appreciation of evidence of parties, the same has been rightly given effect from the date of adjudication. 2 4) The issue No.2 framed by trial Court is “Does plaintiff proved that the rent of tenanted premises needs to be revised as per prevailing market value?” Finding on it as recorded is “Does not survive.” The perusal of para 8 in which said issue is being considered in the judgment by trial Court shows that trial Court has found that evidence of P.W.2 i.e. father of petitioner cannot be accepted. Similarly, it has not relied upon report of P.W.3 Civil Engineer at Exhibit-35 by observing that the petitioner/plaintiff cannot take benefit of that evidence or report at Exhibit-35. Witness had deposed that plaintiff is entitled to recover fair rent of Rs.2600/- per month. This finding is maintained even by Appellate Court. To show that this finding is erroneous or perverse, evidence of said witness along with report ought to have been produced before this Court with relevant grounds in writ petition. In writ jurisdiction in absence of such material, the said finding concurrently reached cannot be interfered with. 5) Landlord moves application for fixation of fair rent, after knowing that rent being received by him at present is insufficient. He is not getting fair rent fixed for future period or for period commencing from the date of adjudication of his application. Thus, it is his present feeling of injustice, which has been taken care of by the Maharashtra Rent Control Order, 1999 by giving him a forum. The order passed determining fair rent, therefore, ordinarily has to come into force from the date on which application is filed. The trial Court as also the Appellate Court has erred in not making the fair rent applicable from April, 2002. Accordingly, the order of judgment of Civil Judge, Junior 3 Division Amravati in Reg.Civil Suit No.40/2002 delivered on 14/08/2007 is modified only to that extent and it is declared that petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to rent of Rs.850/- per month excluding electricity charges from April, 2002 onwards. 6) Rest of the judgment and order is maintained as it is. 7) Advocate Shri Jetha states that petitioner is also entitled to 4% annual increase as per provision of section 11 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The contention is without any basis in evidence, as petitioner/plaintiff has not demonstrated that he had asked his tenant to pay rent accordingly with said increase. 8) Writ petition is thus partly allowed. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Khunte .