The state government will have to pay a deposit of Rs90 crore to retain its rented office of the registrar of co-operative societies in Fort, opposite GPO.
The Supreme Court said on Thursday that the amount will have to be deposited with the small causes court. Failing this, the state will have to vacate the 9,000 sq ft property in the heart of Mumbai, for which it had been paying a paltry monthly rent of Rs5236.58, plus Rs515.35 in water charges, since 1966.
The property that had once belonged to the Maharaja of Travancore, was bought by M/s Super Max International Pvt Limited and two others under a deed agreement in May 1982. The new landlords sought eviction of the government office, complaining of default in payment of rents. In June 1993, the small causes court directed the government to vacate the office.
The government moved the Bombay high court against the eviction order. The HC said that the order could be stayed provided the government agreed to a revised rent of Rs5.40 lakh a month with effect from June 1993. The court added that the arrears would have to be deposited by January 10, 2009, and thereafter, future deposits for every month would have to be made by the 10th day of the succeeding month. Not willing to comply, the government moved the Supreme Court.
The apex court on Thursday upheld the HC order. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice BN Agrawal, said that the deposit amount, along with its accrued interest, should be paid to either of the sides only after the final disposal of the matter.
“In case, for some reason, the court finds it just and expedient that the amount fixed by it should go to the landlord even while the matter is pending, it must be careful to direct payment to the landlord on terms, so that in case the final decision goes in favour of the tenant, the payment should be made to him without any undue delay or complications”, the bench said.
Discussing the changing tenant-landlord relationship, the SC said the rent act was a socio-legal response to certain historical developments, such as acute shortage of housing in the aftermath of the world wars, the great influx of refugees in a number of states following Partition and the massive migration from rural areas to the urban centres.
“All these developments that took place almost at the same time skewed the law of supply and demand totally in favour of the landlord”, the court said. “The need of the hour, therefore, was to protect the tenant, who would have otherwise been left completely at the mercy of the landlord. The legislature intervened and brought in the rent act, severely restricting the grounds for enhancement of rent and for eviction of tenant from rented premises...”
