1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4827/2009. ( Prabhat R. Gupta . -: versus :- Krishnalal B. Sahni) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 11, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri R.S. Deo, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Sharma, learned counsel for respondent. The application moved by the respondent / landlord under Section 8[2] of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been allowed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur on 04.05.2009. Shri Deo, learned counsel contends that initially rent at the time of induction of petitioner as tenant was only Rs. 900/- per month and at that time the interest free deposit of Rs.5000/- was paid by the petitioner. He further states that, rent was inclusive of municipal taxes and the water charges and electricity charges were to be borne separately. The rent was increased suo moto at regular intervals and at the time when proceedings were filed rent was Rs. 2000/- per month. According to him, in this 2 circumstances, merely because municipal taxation has increased manifold, the Small Causes Court has fixed the fair rent to be Rs. 3200/- per month from the date of application without looking into any co-relation between the said taxation and the monthly rent. He invites attention to the valuation report placed on record by the respondent landlord to argue that, that report has also not been appropriately dealt with. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for respondent argues that the rent was inclusive of municipal taxes and hence on account of manifold increase therein, revision of rent was found essential. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have perused the papers. Perusal of record show that the valuation report dated 23.08.2003 submitted by the Architect, does not mention annual letting value of the property and there is no material on record to connect the rent being actually paid by the petitioner with the tax demand by the municipal corporation. There is also no evidence to show the rents prevalent in the vicinity. According to Shri Deo, learned counsel, even after the increase in the taxation, his proportionate share shall be worked out to only Rs. 110/-. Shri Sharma, learned counsel disputes this. However, I find that there is no consideration of all these aspects by the Small Causes Court. In this situation, as there is a finding of increase in property tax and the rent fixed between the parties was inclusive of property tax, I am inclined to permit the respondent landlord to file appropriate application under relevant provision for getting the rent fixed in accordance 3 with law. If such application is filed, the same shall be decided expeditiously by the Small Causes Court. Petitioner tenant shall cooperate with the landlord in the matter. Subject to this, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.