UNTWALIA, J. - (1.) SPECIAL leave in this appeal from the judgment of the Bombay High Court was granted restricted only to the question as to whether the enhancement of rent could be made with retrospective effect. We are, therefore, concerned to decide the said question only.
(2.) IN the year 1946 the Government of INdia drew up a Scheme for construction of houses for industrial workers and to let them out to them at a subsidised rent. The then State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) passed Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 - hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, to provide for measures to be taken to deal with and satisfy the need of housing accommodation. IN accordance with Sec. 3, the Maharashtra Housing Board, a Statutory corporate body was constituted. Chapter III of the Act provided for the making of the housing schemes by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act and subject to the control of the State Government. Elaborate machinery was provided for the framing and the implementing of the schemes. Section 66 empowered the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Subject to the overall control and power of the State Government as provided for in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 67, sub-section (1) thereof states : "The Board may from time to time, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make regulations consistent with this Act and with any rules made under this Act - (a) for the management and use of building constructed under any housing scheme; (b) the principles to be followed in allotment of tenements and premises; (c) the remuneration and conditions of service of the Housing Commissioner and other officers and servants of the Board under Sec. 13; (d) for regulating its procedure and the disposal of its business." The Board was also empowered to make bye-laws under Sec. 68. We shall not be concerned in this case with the Bombay Housing Board Rules, 1949 framed by the State Government. But the relevant Regulations framed by the Board will have to be referred to. At the outset we may state the necessary facts in relation to the two appellants - Shri R. C. Manjire and Shri A. L. Raghavan Nair, appellants 1 & 2 respectively. Although the said two appellants had purported to file the writ petition and the writ appeal in the High Court on behalf of themselves and other industrial worker tenants of the Board residing in Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Bombay, and they purported to follow up the matter by filing the special leave petition in a representative capacity, the appeal was, however, argued, as its appears, due to non-compliance of some stay order passed by this Court by the other workers, as if it was an appeal by the said two appellants only. Any way that will not be of the any material consequence because our decision in this appeal, obviously, will govern the rights and liabilities of the other industrial workers similarly situated. The first appellant who was an industrial worker employed with Premier Automobiles Ltd., Kurla was allotted tenement No. 54/1916 as per the tenancy agreement dated the 19/01/1959, executed in Form II appended to the Regulations. The subsidised rent fixed was Rs. 27.00 per month plus the monthly service charges of Rs. 6.00. Similarly appellant No. 2 who was an industrial worker employed with Indian Rare Earths Limited was allotted tenement No. 26/921 in Tilak Nagar at the same subsidised rent of Rs. 27.00 per month plus the monthly service charges of Rs. 7.50. The allotment to him was also made sometime in the year 1959 on the basis of a similar agreement. Such allotments are said to have been made in respect of about 4,000 tenements.
(3.) A notice dated the 10th of October, 1972 was given to appellant No. 2 by the Board stating therein : "Tenements constructed under the Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme are allotted to the Industrial Worker whose monthly income does not exceed Rs. 350.00 on payment of subsidised rent only. Those who have crossed the wage limit of Rs. 350.00 p.m. subsequently are not entitled to retain the tenements, nor are they entitled to get subsidy in rent. The question of eviction of workers who had crossed the prescribed wage limit of Rs. 350/ p.m. has been considered sympathetically and the Government have been pleased to order that such tenants who have exceeded wage limit of Rs. 350.00 should be allowed to retain the tenements by charging them graded increases w.e.f. 20-4-66 as under :- 1) Wage group of workers between Rs. 351.00 to Rs. 425.00 p.m.40 Per Cent of the interest charged on the subsidy for construction of the house. 2) Wage group of workers between Rs. 426.00 to Rs. 500.00 p.m.80 Per Cent - do - (3) Persons who are exceeding the limit of Rs. 500.00 shall be charged full economic rent. (4) In partial modification of the above, the Government have been pleased to charge w.e.f. 28-11-59 50 Per Cent of the interest charges on the subsidy for construction of the house from industrial worker tenants whose monthly income is in the range of Rs. 350.00 to Rs. 500.00. (5) On enquiry from your employers M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. it is learnt that your income exceeded Rs. 350.00 p.m. w.e.f. 1-11-67. You are as such allowed to avail the concession to pay the subsidised rent for 3 months from that date, and you are liable to be charged graded rent from 1-2-68. In view of the above orders of the Government you have been assessed graded rent/economic rent as detailed below :- JUDGEMENT_578_4_1977Html1.htm The total amount thus payable by you for the period from 1-2-68 to 30-6-72 works out to Rs. 971.66; you are requested to pay the above arrears within 10 days from the date of issue of this letter. You are further advised to start paying rent from 1-7-72 onward at increased rate of Rs. 55.68 p.m. inclusive of service charges as your monthly income is in the range of Rs. 351.00 to 425, 426 to Rs. 500.00 and above Rs. 500.00 p.m. If you fail to pay the increased amount as intimated, it will be presumed that you are not accepting the increase and are not interested to retain the tenement and further action as permissible will be pursued to effect the recovery of amount and to take vacant possession of the tenement from you." A similar notice dated the 30/01/1973 was given to appellant No. 1 stating therein that in his case the income limit had exceeded prior to 20-4-66 and he was liable to be charged graded rent w.e.f. that date. Accordingly arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 2,145.91 were demanded from him for the period 20-4-66 to 31-12-72 and he was asked to pay on and from 1st of January, 73 an increased rate of rent of Rs. 56.26 per month inclusive of service charges.;