High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Five-Year Rent Revision Clause in Government Leases, Upholds Ready Reckoner-Based Calculations

10 November 2024 10:30 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


“The unilateral imposition of a five-year revision clause is contrary to the original contractual terms and is therefore quashed,” rules the High Court.
In a significant judgment delivered on July 10, 2024, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the revised lease rent calculations based on the Ready Reckoner value for government-leased lands but struck down the clause allowing the government to revise rents every five years. The bench, comprising Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan, emphasized that the government cannot unilaterally alter the lease terms in a manner inconsistent with the original lease deeds. This decision impacts numerous cooperative housing societies and individual leaseholders in Mumbai’s prime localities.
The writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of government resolutions from 2006, 2012, and 2018, which revised lease rents for government-leased lands. The primary contention was the calculation of lease rents based on the Ready Reckoner value of land and the inclusion of a clause allowing the government to revise rents every five years. The petitioners, including various cooperative housing societies and individual leaseholders, argued that the revised rents were exorbitant and the five-year revision clause was arbitrary and contrary to the original lease agreements.
The court affirmed the use of the Ready Reckoner to determine the value of the land for lease rent calculations, noting it as a transparent and fair method. “The application of the Ready Reckoner value ensures a consistent and reasonable basis for determining lease rents, provided it is applied uniformly and without arbitrary variations,” the bench stated.
The court found the revised lease rent calculations based on the 2012 and 2018 government resolutions to be fair and reasonable. For cooperative housing societies, the revised rents were calculated at 1% of 25% of the Ready Reckoner value, while for individual plots, rents were calculated at 2% of 25% of the Ready Reckoner value. The court noted that these revised rents were not exorbitant, considering the prime location of the properties and the long period during which the rents had remained unchanged.
However, the court quashed the clause allowing rent revisions every five years, deeming it contrary to the original lease agreements. Justice B. P. Colabawalla remarked, “Clause B(1)(d) of the 2012 GR, which seeks to reset/revise the lease rent every five years, is unsustainable as it unilaterally alters the original lease terms, which did not contemplate such periodic revisions.”
The judgment extensively discussed the principles of contract law and the obligation of the state to act fairly and reasonably in its contractual dealings. The court emphasized that while the state is exempt from rent control legislations, it must still adhere to constitutional mandates of fairness and reasonableness. “The state cannot act arbitrarily and must ensure that any revisions or alterations to lease agreements are mutually agreed upon and not unilaterally imposed,” the court observed.
Justice Colabawalla stated, “The unilateral imposition of a five-year revision clause is contrary to the original contractual terms and is therefore quashed. However, the revised lease rents based on the Ready Reckoner value are upheld as fair and reasonable.”
The High Court’s judgment strikes a balance between the need for the government to obtain fair returns on its leased properties and the rights of the lessees to a stable and predictable lease arrangement. By quashing the five-year revision clause, the court has ensured that lease agreements cannot be altered unilaterally, reinforcing the principles of contractual fairness and constitutional mandates. This decision will have significant implications for future lease agreements and the redevelopment of cooperative housing societies in Mumbai.
Date of Decision: July 10, 2024

 

Latest Legal News