2023 (3) TMI 1489 - HC - Indian Laws

Fair Rent Determination - building has been let out to the Union of India for use by the Income Tax Department - Chief Commissioner, Income Tax fixed the fair rent in terms of the CPWD recommendation - as submitted that since the CPWD rates were being followed all along and even the fair rent was ascertained on the basis of such rates, there was no reason for the respondent-Authorities to withhold the rent to the petitioners in terms of the CPWD rates, as they came out from time to time. HELD THAT - Although the respondents have argued that the CPWD rates, as per the Manual on Infrastructure of CBDT, are merely advisory, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, while fixing the fair rent for the premises lastly, had himself relied on the CPWD rates. As such, there is no plausible reason to deviate from such rent structure subsequently. The respondents have all along acted on the basis of the CPWD rates for assessing the rent for the premises-in-question. Since the Circular dated January 30, 1987 also indicates that the rent has to be revised in respect of buildings hired by the Income Tax Department as per the CPWD Code, the respondent-Authorities cannot deviate from such norms now, more so in the absence of any alternative yardstick. The petitioners, in their supplementary affidavit, have clearly enumerated the arrears of rent as per the CPWD rates. Admittedly, the respondent no. 1 vacated the rented premises Parmar Building and gave possession of the same to the petitioners on June 30, 2021. As such, the rent due to the petitioners has to be cleared by the respondents in favour of the petitioners up to the said date. Such date has been disclosed by the petitioners in their supplementary affidavit filed in connection with the writ petition. The respondents opposition thereto does not, in specific terms, deny either the date of handing over possession by the respondent-Authorities or the calculations made by the petitioners in the said supplementary affidavit. Inasmuch as the respondents claim of Municipal Tax and maintenance and repair charges due from the landlords/petitioners is concerned, the document on record clearly indicate that the fair rent adjudicated by the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax indicated that Municipal Taxes and maintenance and repair charges were to be borne by the petitioners. Although learned counsel for the respondents has vociferously argued that such amounts were not paid by the petitioner, neither has it been averred by the respondents as to whether they paid such sums and, if so, what was the quantum paid by them, nor has any such claim been made by the petitioners before any forum till date. Moreover, the said question has to be adjudicated by taking detailed evidence, which is beyond the scope of the writ court. Whether the order of the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax would prevail in the teeth of the specific provisions laid down in Section 151 of the 1990 Act, which applies to the present case and provides for apportionment of property tax by the person primarily liable to pay, by recovery of the same from the occupiers of the premises - There can neither by any agreement against the statute, nor can the assessment of fair rent by the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax prevail over the provisions of law. Since the 1990 Act prevails in respect of the building-in-question in view of it being situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Asansol, such question is also required to be decided prior to observing that any amount, if at all, is due by way of Municipal Taxes from the petitioners to the respondents. Inasmuch as the maintenance and repair charges are concerned, the respondents have produced precious nothing to substantiate their claim of having borne the expenses in that regard. Unless specific pleading is made and proof is furnished in that regard, in any event, the respondents are not entitled to get any such amount from the petitioners. Question of adjustment of such dues from the amount payable by way of rent to the petitioners - such argument has to negated at the outset, also on another score. It is well-settled that unless there is a specific agreement between the lessor and lessee and/or landlord and tenant to the effect that repair and maintenance charges shall be adjusted from the rent, such adjustment cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the respondents/lessees. Since the possession was handed over as long back as on June 30, 2021, the respondents are undoubtedly at liberty to institute a regular civil suit to make such money claim before a competent court of law. However, in view of the above discussions, there is no scope of this Court adjusting such amount of Municipal Taxes and alleged repair and maintenance charges within the ambit of the present writ petition.

Summary

Issues: Determination of fair rent for a building leased to the Union of India by the Income Tax Department, non-payment of rent as per CPWD rates, dispute over Municipal Taxes and maintenance charges.

Summary:

Issue 1: Fair Rent Determination
The petitioners, owners of a building leased to the Income Tax Department, challenged a reduction in rent by the Board of Finance. A Division Bench directed a rehearing, resulting in the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax affirming the fair rent recommended by CPWD. The petitioners sought revision of rent as per CPWD rates every five years, leading to a writ petition (WP No. 4178(W) of 2005) for reconsideration by the Chief Commissioner.

Issue 2: Non-Payment of Rent
The petitioners agreed to accept the fair rent fixed by the Chief Commissioner, subject to their right to claim enhanced rates later. However, the respondents stopped paying rent as per CPWD rates, leading to the present writ petition due to inaction by the authorities.

Issue 3: Municipal Taxes and Maintenance Charges
The respondents claimed Municipal Taxes and maintenance charges were payable by the petitioners, which the petitioners denied. The Chief Commissioner's order specified that such charges were to be borne by the landlords. The respondents argued that CPWD rates were advisory and not binding, while the petitioners emphasized adherence to CPWD rates for rent assessment.

Judgment:
The Court directed the respondents to disburse arrears of rent totaling Rs. 2,82,39,242/- as per CPWD revisions from January 31, 1994, to June 30, 2021, by May 31, 2023. Interest at six per cent per annum was mandated for default in payment. The respondents were granted the option to file a civil suit for Municipal Taxes and maintenance charges, with the Court emphasizing that such claims should be adjudicated through due legal process. Other related cases were disposed of, and no costs were awarded.