1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1231/2010. Dr. Anant Bapurao Battawar -: versus :- Dr. Ashok Gajanan Joshirao. 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 : MAY 03, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri Rajnish Vyas, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri V.G. Palshikar, learned counsel for respondent. Petitioner – landlord questions the judgment delivered in revision under Section 34[4] of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 bringing down the standard rent fixed by the Small Causes Court at Rs. 1100/- per month to Rs. 350/- per month. Contention of Shri Vyas, learned counsel is that the said finding is reached because of erroneous reference to adjudication in Civil Suit No. 285/1993 and to the fact that the petitioner / landlord did not independently move for fixation of standard rent. He contends that both reasons are incorrect. Application for fixation of rent moved way back in the year 1992 before the Rent Controller was still pending and it was pointed out to the courts. Regular Civil 2 Suit No. 285/1993 was only for recovery of arrears of rent and the standard rent has not been determined therein. Shri Palshikar, learned counsel states that in Regular Civil Suit No. 285/1993 a categorical finding has been recorded that rent is inclusive of all taxes and hence, the prayer and stand of petitioner that tax amount has been over and above the rent amount, is found to be incorrect. He therefore, states that the application under section 8 of the Act, was moved by the respondent / tenant for fixation of fair rent and he pointed out that Rs.350/- is the fair rent. The landlord did not file any counter application and there was no prayer before the Small Causes Court to increase the rent over and above Rs.350/-. He further states that the landlord in his cross examination before the Small Causes Court accepted that there was no increase in the corporation and other taxes. He therefore, argues that no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The pendency of application for fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller since 1992 and effort of petitioner to have the rent increased is an admitted position. It is pointed out to this Court that maintainability of application under section 8 filed by the tenant was challenged because of said rent control proceedings and small causes court infact has rejected the application of tenant. The tenant then approached the District Court in revision and tenants revision was allowed holding that application under section 8 as filed, was very much maintainable. The said order has attained finality. 3 It is obvious that the fair rent or standard rent is to be decided by the Authorities not at the instance of the landlord or tenant, but the fair rent is in relation to premises which forms subject matter of application. In these facts it is obvious that the determination of fair rent under Section 8 of the Act renders the application filed by petitioner / landlord before Rent Control authorities redundant. The Small Causes Court therefore, had to find out what has to be the standard rent of the premises. Its consideration is not eclipsed by prayer made to it by respondent tenant that it has to be Rs.350/- per month. In determining fair rent it has to independently evaluate the evidence adduced and thereafter deliver a finding. In the present facts, the petitioner landlord has in written statement stated that rent has to be about Rs. 1200- 1500/- per month and has also adduced evidence accordingly before the Small Causes Court. After appreciating the evidence the finding that rent is Rs.1100/- per month has been recorded by that Court. That finding was questioned by tenant by filing revision. In this situation, reference to adjudication in Regular Civil Suit No. 285/1993 is relevant only to find out whether the rent agreed between the parties at Rs.350/- per month is or is not inclusive of all taxes. The said rent does not prohibit any court from finding out whether it is reasonable or not, so as to qualify to be standard rent. The lower Appellate Court has overlooked this aspect and gave undue importance to determination in Civil Suit No. 285/1993 or then to the fact that the 4 landlord did not file independent application under section 8 of the Act for determination of standard rent. Perusal of revisional judgment, para 14 shows that the landlord had claimed rent to be between Rs. 1200-1500 per month. I, therefore, find that the consideration by the revisional court suffers from non application of mind and hence it's judgment is unsustainable. The proceedings in revision are restored back to the file of District Judge, Nagpur for taking fresh decision therein, in accordance with the law. It is made clear that the observations made by this court are only for the purpose of adjudication of the issues raised before it and shall not influence the revisional court while considering the controversy on merits. The impugned judgment dated 21.01.2010 in Civil Revision No.3/2007 is accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule accordingly. No costs. Parties to appear before the Revisional Court on 15.06.2010 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. JUDGE Rgd.