BANATWALA & COMPANY versus L.L.C. OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 19-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 533 
BANATWALA & COMPANY 
V. 
L.l.C. OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7171 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Rent Control and eviction: 
A 
B 
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - s. 2(14), 8 and 29 C 
- Provisions for fixation of standard rent and maintenance of 
essential services under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act -
Applicability of, to public premises owned by public 
corporations/undertakings - Held: The subjects of fixation of 
Standard Rent and restoration of essential services by the o 
lan(Jlord are covered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 
and not under the Public Premises Act - Application of the 
tenants for the said matters when necessary, are maintainable 
under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Eviction and 
recovery of arrears of rent are alone covered under the Public 
E 
Premises Act - Thus, the provisions of the Maharastra Rent 
Control Act with respect to fixation of Standard Rent for 
premises, and requiring the landlord not to cut off or withhold 
essential supply or service, and to restore the same when 
necessary, are not in conflict with or repugnant to any of the 
provisions of the Public Premises Act - Provisions of the 
Public Premises Act govern the relationship between the 
public undertakings covered under the Act and their 
occupants to the extent they provide for eviction of 
unauthorised occupants from public premises, recovery of 
arrears of rent or damages for such unauthorised occupation, 
G 
and other incidental matters specified under the Act -
Provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act govern the 
relationship between the public undertakings and their 
occupants to the extent it covers the other aspects of the 
F 
533 
H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A relationship between the landlord and tenants, not covered 
under the Public Premises Act - Public Premises (Eviction 
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - ss. 2(e), 5, 7 and 15. 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) 
B Act, 1971: 
ss. 2(e), 5, 7, 15 - Eviction of unauthorised occupants 
from Public Premises and recovery of arrears of rent from 
them - Initiation of proceedings under the Public Premises 
Act - Held: Proceedings initiated by the landlord would be fully 
C competent under the Public Premises Act - Occupants would 
not be entitled to seek any remedy under the Bombay Rent 
Act or the subsequent Maharashtra Rent Control Act since 
the jurisdiction of the civil court has been ousted uls. 15 -
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 
D 1947 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 
ss. 10 and 15 - Jurisdiction of civil courts for the remedies 
of fixation of rent or maintenance of essential services, if 
ousted - Held: Jurisdiction of the civil court for these remedies 
E is not ousted - Actions covered under the Public Premises 
Act are concerning eviction of unauthorised occupants and 
recovery of arrears of rent - Act does not speak anything 
about the fixation of Standard Rent or maintenance of 
essential services and no remedy is provided thereunder -
F The fact that proceeding for one purpose is provided under 
one statute cannot lead to an automatic conclusion that the 
remedy for a different purpose provided under another 
competent statute becomes unavailable. 
G 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 254(2) - Repugnancy between the law made by 
the Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature -
When arises - Held: When both the legislation occupy the 
same field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in 
H List Ill and where a direct conflict is seen between the two - It 
! 
-
BANATWALA & COMPANY v. L.l.C. OF INDIA & ANR. 535 
·is. to be examined as to whether the two legislations occupy 
A 
the same field - There is no repugnancy when legislations 
do not occupy the same field - Provisions of Maharashtra 
Rent Control Act with respect to fixation of Standard Rent and 
requiring the landlord to maintain the essential services and 
supplies not in conflict or repugnant to any of the provisions 
B 
under the Public Premises Act - Public Premises (Eviction 
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Maharashtra Rent 
Control Act, 1999 - ss. 2(14), 8 and 29. 
Two Acts when governing the common field, whether both 
C 
can apply for different purpose - Held: There could be 
provisions for certain purposes in one statute and for another 
purpose in another statute though 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.