1946 (12) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the respondent to determine the standard rent.
2. Applicability of the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944.
3. Allegation of premises being subdivided to circumvent the law.
4. Previous dismissal of similar applications and its impact on the current application.
5. Status of Tukaram Tavde as a tenant or licensee.
6. Adequacy of the petition and disclosure of material facts.
7. Availability of alternative remedies and appeal provisions.
8. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of certiorari or prohibition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Respondent to Determine the Standard Rent:
The petitioners challenged the respondent's jurisdiction to determine the standard rent of the shops in question. The court found that the respondent had jurisdiction under Section 13(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, to determine the standard rent where premises were let at one time as a whole and at another time in parts. The court emphasized that the respondent's jurisdiction was statutory and not based on any agreement between the parties.

2. Applicability of the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944:
The court noted that the Act applied to premises where the standard rent exceeded Rs. 80 per month. The petitioners failed to state the standard rent of the premises as required by Section 4(4) of the Act. The court allowed an amendment to the petition to include this information but imposed costs on the petitioners for the omission.

3. Allegation of Premises Being Subdivided to Circumvent the Law:
The tenants alleged that the petitioners subdivided a single tenement into five shops to circumvent the law. The court found that this allegation brought the case within the purview of Section 13(b) of the Act, allowing the respondent to determine the standard rent of the subdivided premises.

4. Previous Dismissal of Similar Applications and Its Impact on the Current Application:
The petitioners argued that the respondent had previously dismissed similar applications in January 1944, making the current application barred. The court found that the previous dismissal was due to a lack of sufficient materials and was not a decision on the merits. Therefore, the principle of res judicata did not apply.

5. Status of Tukaram Tavde as a Tenant or Licensee:
The petitioners contended that Tukaram Tavde was a licensee and not a tenant, and thus the Act did not apply to him. The court held that the respondent had the jurisdiction to determine whether Tavde was a tenant or a licensee, as this was a question within the scope of Section 13(b) of the Act.

6. Adequacy of the Petition and Disclosure of Material Facts:
The court found that the petitioners failed to disclose material facts, such as the standard rent of the premises, which was necessary to establish their case. The court allowed an amendment to rectify this but imposed costs on the petitioners for the omission.

7. Availability of Alternative Remedies and Appeal Provisions:
The respondent argued that the petitioners had an adequate remedy by way of an appeal under Section 14 of the Act. The court noted that the availability of an appeal did not preclude the issuance of a writ of certiorari, especially if the tribunal acted without jurisdiction or contrary to the fundamental principles of justice. However, the court found no such breach in this case.

8. Whether the High Court Should Issue a Writ of Certiorari or Prohibition:
The court concluded that the respondent had jurisdiction to entertain the application and determine the standard rent. The petitioners' contentions were found to be unsound, and the court dismissed the petition with costs, discharging the rule.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent had the jurisdiction to determine the standard rent under the Act. The petitioners failed to disclose material facts and had an adequate remedy by way of an appeal. The court allowed an amendment to the petition but imposed costs on the petitioners for the omission.