1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2870 OF 2011 Akola Janata Commercial Coop. Bank Ltd. Akola Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri R. L. Khapre Adv for petitioner. Shri C. S. Kaptan Adv for respondents 2 & 3. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & A. P. BHANGALE JJ. DATED: 7th OCTOBER, 2011. Heard Shri Khapre learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kaptan learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. We find some disputed facts and questions in the matter. The agreement entered into in June 1997 between the parties casts obligation upon tenant to pay increased rent for increase in area because of new construction. The contention is that thus for increased area only the revised rent is contemplated. According to Shri Kaptan learned counsel, rent revised is applicable to entire property. 2 We further find that first demand for such increase is made vide communication dated 30.03.2007 and that communication mentions the above agreement dated 16.06.1997 and letter written by bank on 27.03.2002. The communication dated 10.12.2002 sent by Municipal Corporation to petitioner reveals annual letting value to be Rs. 92,800/- and rental value to be Rs. 83,520/-. There is also a receipt dated 29.10.2010 issued by Municipal Corporation on record and that receipt shows that for the year 2010-11 the respondent corporation has received an amount of Rs. 47,557/- towards property tax and other taxes. Shri Khapre, learned counsel has also contended that without prejudice to rights of petitioner, petitioner has cleared the rent even as per revised demand and attention is being invited to receipt dated 18.04.2007 for said purpose. Said document is bill and amount claimed is Rs. 1,14,29,829/- for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2009. The communication sent by Municipal Commissioner on 01.12.2009 shows amount of Rs. 75,91,725/- as still recoverable. Shri Kaptan, learned counsel has invited attention to provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act to urge that rent for municipal property is recoverable in accordance with rules stipulated by town planning department. Shri Khapre, 3 learned counsel contends that petitioner had demanded relevant documents from Municipal Corporation and those documents are not still supplied. He contends that there cannot be any unilateral fixation of rent in such circumstances and in any case the municipal corporation is entitled to charge rent only for open area as building has been constructed/allowed to be constructed at the cost of the petitioner. Shri Kaptan, learned counsel contends that as per communication dated 25.02.2011, while supplying information under Right to Information Act necessary documents were given to the petitioner. As we find disputed questions arise and rent needs to be fixed by consent unless statute permits its unilateral determination, we direct the respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation to extend an opportunity of hearing to petitioner in this respect and thereafter to fix the rent in accordance with law. Without resolving the disputed question about supplying of information and documents, we direct respondent no.2 to give inspection to petitioner of their records in this respect and after taking such inspection petitioner shall not insist for supply of any documents and participate in hearing and cooperate with Municipal Corporation. The petitioner shall in the meanwhile continue to pay 4 rent determined by Municipal Corporation without prejudice to its contention. Petitioner shall appear before Municipal Corporation- respondent no. 2 on 15.11.2011 and Municipal Commissioner/appropriate competent authority shall then hear petitioner and take appropriate decision within further period of ten weeks. If the petitioner is found to have paid less, the petitioner shall pay balance amount by 31.03.2012. Municipal Corporation may adjust the amount towards current/future demand if petitioner is found to have paid more. The directions are without prejudice to rights of parties to challenge the order of authorities if they are aggrieved by the same. With these directions petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE svk