Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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