Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

127. Admittedly, in this case, respondents had applied for redevelopment permission under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 to rehabilitate the existing tenants in the new building on ownership basis by providing permanent alternate accommodation free of cost. Respondents were also entitled to carry out construction of additional tenements. If respondents would have agreed to provide accommodation in the new building by continuing the existing tenancy rights in the new structure constructed in the new building and if the landlord would not have handed over possession of the tenements to the tenants in the new building, the tenants in that event could have filed a suit under Section 17 of the said provisions of the said Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for recovery of possession against the landlord read with Section 18 of the said Act.
130. This Court enquired with the learned Counsel for respondents whether it was the case of his client that any landlord can pay rent to the tenant for occupying his premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 had no answer. The word "rent" under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act has to be paid by the tenant to the landlord and not by the landlord to
16.carbpl.20852.21..doc the tenant. The rent provided under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the displacement rent provided under the agreement entered into between the parties in lieu of the appellant handing over vacant possession to the landlord for the purpose of constructing the new building and to allot the tenements in the new building as and by way of permanent alternate accommodation on ownership basis without payment of any costs are two different sets of compensation and cannot be mixed up. The displacement rent along with other compensation is payable by the owner to the allottee of the premises in the new building on ownership basis whereas the rent for the purpose of use and occupation of the tenanted premises is required to be paid by the tenant to the landlord for occupying the premises of the landlord.

132. The term 'tenant' is defined under Section 7(15). A perusal of the said definition indicates that the person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for any premises and includes such person who is a tenant or who is a deemed tenant or who is a sub-tenant as permitted under a contract or by the permission or consent of the landlord etc. In our view, if owner has agreed to pay the displacement rent in lieu of temporary accommodation till such alternate permanent accommodation is handed over by the landlord to the allottee, cannot be considered as a landlord within the meaning of Section 7(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Similarly, the tenant who is receiving such allowance from the landlord in lieu of temporary accommodation till such time the permanent alternate accommodation is made available to him by the landlord on ownership cannot be considered as a tenant within the meaning of Section 7(15) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 could not demonstrate as to how his client was a landlord within the meaning of Section 7(3) though was paying displacement compensation or rent to the tenant in lieu of the temporary accommodation till the possession of the permanent alternate accommodation is handed over to the tenant on ownership basis in the new building.

134. On perusal of the definition of the landlord and the tenant referred to aforesaid and considering the facts of this case, this Court cannot accept the submission of the Dr. Chandrachud, learned Counsel for the respondents that under the said agreement entered into between the parties, there was a relationship of landlord and tenant though by the said agreement, the appellant became entitled to an allotment of shop as permanent alternate accommodation on ownership basis without payment of any cost. In our view, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 are ex-facie contrary to well settled principles of law laid down by various Courts in various judgments referred aforesaid and also the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.