1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5569/2009 BABURAO SADHASHIV PATIL VS. SHRI OMPRAKASH T. SHIVHARE AND ANOTHER Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.A.D.Vyawahare, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.J.Siddhu, Advocate for Respondent NO.1 & 2 CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2010. 1. Heard Advocate Vyawahare for petitioner and Advocate Siddhu with Advocate Dhruv for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. The Rent Controller has found that the certificate of Collector and PWD regarding rate of rent in respect of Government Offices is not applicable and still granted increase of fair rent to Rs.4 per sq.ft., from Re.1/- per sq.ft. This order was challenged by Respondent/ Landlord in Appeal No.20 and by petitioner/tenant in Appeal No.16 before the Additional District Collector, Nagpur. By order dated 31.07.2006 the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal filed by respondent/landlord and granted increase of Rs.6/- per sq.ft instead of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. The appellate authority has granted said enhancement revision from the date of application. The tenant's appeal was dismissed. The tenant then filed review and in review, the Reviewing Authority has maintained the order of Appellate Authority. 2 3. In this background, Advocate for tenant contends that as there was no evidence on record, the hike as granted is unsustainable. He states that findings of Rent Controller in this respect cannot be lebelled as erroneous or perverse and in spite of those findings, in one line observation, that authority granted rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. The learned counsel contends that when there was no material as observed by the Rent Controller, the application of landlord deserves to be dismissed. Comment on order of Appellate Authority are on same line and it is contended that the Appellate Authority has also mostly accepted the contention of present petitioner, but then only because of one line reason, it has increased the rent to Rs.6/- per sq.ft. The increase has been made effective from the date of application without any application of mind. In these circumstances, attention is invited to appeal memo also to urge that there is no express prayer in appeal memo seeking hike from the date of application. 4. Advocate Vyawahare argues that as review was sought for by the petitioner, in that review, the fresh appreciation of evidence could not have been undertaken by the reviewing authority for the first time to justify its order in appeal. 5. Advocate Siddhu on the other hand supports the impugned order. He argues that as per law, the increase becomes applicable from the date of application and accordingly the same has been granted by the Appellate Authority. He further states that though there was no lengthy appreciation of evidence as such by the 3 Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority, the evidence has been looked into in details by reviewing authority and grant of Rs.6/- per sq.ft has been held to be justified. He points out that Corporation Tax was Rs.259/- per month in 1973-74 and it was hiked to Rs.4045/- per year in 1992-93. He, therefore, states that no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. 6. I find that the Rent Controller specifically makes the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft applicable from the date of order. In appeal, the respondent/landlord prayed for allowing the application as filed before the Rent Controller by setting aside the impugned order. The appellate Authority has granted that prayer by allowing the appeal. The application for fixation of fair rent has been moved for getting the rent enhanced and in such circumstances, the application needed to be granted from the date on which it was made. The prayer in appeal made by respondent needs to be looked into in this background and hence, I do not find anything wrong with the Appellate Authority granting enhancement from the date of application moved by the respondent/landlord. The petitioner/tenant has understood the appellate order accordingly and this grievance was made by him in review & has been rejected. It is clear that delay in disposal of matters can not be allowed to frustrate the cause of landlord by granting him hike from the date of order when cause of action has accrued earlier. 7. Though the order of Rent Controller or Appellate Authority does not consider the evidence in details, the order of Authority in review clearly shows that 4 necessary evidence was already on record. The fact shows that Corporation Tax on property was hiked manyfold. The area in possession of present petitioner/tenant is about 572 sq.ft and the other tenants occupying other floors of the same building are paying rent of Rs.3/- per sq.ft excluding the Corporation Taxes. The petitioner is on ground floor. In this connection, the certificates issued by PWD in the year 1988 are looked into and the grant of rent at Rs.6/- per sq.ft has been held to be justified. These documents are in relation to same building and are not in dispute. 8. Though Advocate Vyawahare is right in contending that the Rent Controller or Appellate Authority did not consider the entire evidence, I find that they have not mentioned the entire evidence in details. Relevant evidence and material has been looked into and there is no jurisdictional error. The conclusions reached by them in the light of evidence discussed by Reviewing Authority cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. The Rent Controller found the rent of Re.1/- per sq.ft being paid by petitioner is insufficient and this finding on preliminary issue under Clause 4 of Rent Control Order was not challenged. The Rent Controller then granted rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft and after looking to the material on record, the appellate Authority has found that rate insufficient and granted rate of Rs.6/- per sq.ft. The Reviewing Authority (Successor in Office) has considered the entire evidence to find out whether such grant can be held to be justified or not. Nothing wrong with the said application of mind by Reviewing Authority has been pointed out to this Court. 9. I, therefore, find no case made out warranting 5 interference in writ jurisdiction. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Advocate Shri Vyawahare requests that the impugned order should be stayed for a period of six weeks to enable the petitioner to take further steps in the matter. Request being opposed by the Advocate Siddhu for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The petitioner is given time as prayed for subject to petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today. Interim protection shall cease to operate automatically if amount is not deposited or then after six weeks from today. 11. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit.