LexJAMSHED HORMUSJI WADIA versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF MUMBAI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-"( JAMSHED HORMUSJI WADIA A V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF MUMBAI AND ANR. JANUARY 13, 2004 [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] B Rent Control and Eviction: Major Port Trust Act, I 963/Constitution of India, 19j0; Articles 12 and c 14/Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order. I Rule 8 and Order 41 Rule 22: Bombay Port Trnst!Board of Trustee-Lessees-Revision of Rent and terms and conditions thereof-Engaging of consultant for valuation of the land-Acceptance of Report-Fixation of fair market rates-Notices for termination of tenancy/payment of revised rent-Challenge to-Single Judge D of the High Court struck down the notices-In appeal, Division Bench directing the Board to formulate a formula for fixation of rent-Formula/compromise (, proposal-Approved by the Division Bench-Challenge to-Held: Bombay Port Trust is an instrumentality of State, hence an authority-States have to act just and fair in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution whether acting as a landlord/tenant-State is empowered to raise rent to the extent to E compensate the loss caused by injlationmy tendencies including increased cost of maintenance/taxes/administrative expenses but not allowed to earn profit/unreasonable eviction-Revision of rate of rent, recove1y of arrears and levy of interest thereon could be decided on the basis of the compromise proposal/formula with certain modifications in the rate of interest on the F arrears of rent-Direction issued. • 1 Revision in Rent as per compromise proposal-Relaxation-Held: since the appellant/tenant could neither make use of the entire property nor could develop it fidly owing to its peculiar location and surrounding status and nature of land held by him which find support from documentmy evidence! Report of the consultants, hence deserves some relaxation-Such other tenants G could also file representations-The representations would be adjudicated by an Adjudicator to be appointed by the High Court. Cross-objection in appeal under Article 136-Va/idity of-Held: cross- objection does not lie. 483 H 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R. A Constitution of lndia: Article 136 of the Constitution-Scope of-Held: it confers discretionarJ' power on the Supreme Court to inte1fere in suitable cases-Self imposed restrictions placed as fetters-Could not restrict the Court from leaping into resolution of controversies-However, the jurisdiction of the Court remains B an extra ordinary jurisdiction, whether exercised in granting /eave/deciding the appeal. Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order 41 Rule 22-Scope of-Discussed. Respondent, Born bay Port Trust (BPT), known as Board of Trustee C holding huge land, a part of which was under intensive use for its own activities and rest of the land was in occupation of a large number of lessees holding leases of various tenures and leases were created long back. The lease rent was revised upward from time to time. Later, in 1962, the World Bank as well as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India D advised the Board to secure a fair and reasonable revenue for its estate to perform its public duties effectively. The board undertook a massive exercise for the revision of rent and also the terms and conditions of the leases and engaged a consultant. A draft report submitted by the consultants was accepted by the Board after serious deliberations on the subject. Following up the recommendation, notices were issued to lessees E for termination of tenancy, payment of revised rent with arrears and interest thereon. Aggrieved, lessees challenged the revision in rent as not reasonable and fair. Single Judge of the High Court held that the proposed revision and demand of rent did not breach the provisions of the Major Port Act; 1963. However, he opined that the revision in rent was arbitrary F and capricious and violative of the constitutional restraint on the Port Trust in the capacity of an instrumentality of the State and notices were struck down. In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the Board to formulate a formula for revision in rents. The Board arrived at a formula termed as compromise proposal. The Division Bench of the High Court issued notices to the lessees in terms of Order I Rule 8, C.P.C. G and finally approved the compromise formula. Some of the lessees, including the appellant, felt aggrieved, and filed the special leave petitions. Disposing of the petitions, this Court rema
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.