2015 (10) TMI 618 - HC - Central Excise

Determination of rent - Held that - Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot examine as to the rate of rent to be fixed in respect of premises which is in occupation of the respondents. If petitioner is aggrieved by non-compliance of contractual obligation by the respondents, it is for the petitioner to approach civil court for redressal of his grievance. Even otherwise, under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, a provision is made for fixation of standard rent by the Controller at the request of parties. Petitioner without exhausting these remedies, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. As such, prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. - Decided against Appellant.

Issues:
Petitioner seeking quashing of intimation and direction for lease deed execution, determination of monthly rent as per Fair Rent Certificate, enhancement of rent by respondents, jurisdiction of the High Court under writ petition.

Analysis:

1. Quashing of Intimation and Lease Deed Execution:
The petitioner, the owner of the property, sought to quash the intimation and direction for executing a lease deed issued by the respondents. The property had been leased to the Central Excise Department, and the rent had been mutually enhanced over the years. The Fair Rent Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer indicated a range of reasonable rent, but the respondents insisted on an enhanced rate. The High Court noted the long occupation of the premises by the respondents but held that the petitioner should seek redressal through civil court or under the Karnataka Rent Act for fixing standard rent. The court rejected the petition, emphasizing that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked for contractual matters.

2. Determination of Monthly Rent:
The dispute revolved around the determination of the monthly rent for the premises occupied by the respondents. Despite the Fair Rent Certificate and the petitioner's willingness to negotiate based on the Central Public Works Department's rates, the respondents unilaterally fixed the rent at a higher amount. The High Court highlighted the availability of legal remedies under the Karnataka Rent Act for fixing standard rent and stated that the petitioner had not exhausted these options before approaching the court. Consequently, the court rejected the prayer for intervention through the writ petition.

3. Enhancement of Rent by Respondents:
The respondents had enhanced the rent payable by the petitioner, citing a circular allowing an 8% increase in rent. The petitioner had expressed willingness to accept the rates determined by the Central Public Works Department but was compelled to execute a lease deed at a higher rent by the respondents. The court acknowledged the respondents' right to negotiate rent but emphasized that the petitioner should have pursued legal avenues for resolving the rent dispute instead of seeking relief directly through a writ petition. The court rejected the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings for standard rent fixation.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, declined to interfere in the matter of rent fixation for the premises occupied by the respondents. It pointed out that the petitioner could seek recourse through the civil court or the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act for standard rent fixation. The court underscored that extraordinary jurisdiction should not be invoked for contractual disputes and dismissed the petition while allowing the petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment centered on the petitioner's request for quashing the intimation and lease deed execution, determination of monthly rent, respondents' enhancement of rent, and the court's jurisdiction under the writ petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to explore appropriate legal channels for rent dispute resolution.

← Previous Next →