DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) FIVE applications came up for consideration in this suit. A centrally air -conditioned building was constructed in the city of Kolkata at Shakespeare Sarani. Such building subsequently became popularly known as air -conditioned market. The occupants of the buildings can be categorized into two groups, namely, occupants of shops and occupants of office spaces. The entire building was let out to diverse tenants.
(2.) THE air -conditioned market was owned by the Defendant No. 1. The electricity at the air -conditioned market was supplied by the Defendant No. 2 through a high -tension line. A transformer was installed at the air -conditioned market for stepping down the high voltage electricity. A Section of the tenants of shop at the air -conditioned market in Kolkata filed the instant suit after obtaining leave under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Plaintiff No. 3 claimed itself to be a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. It claimed to be an association of tenants of the air -conditioned market.
(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1 was at a superior bargaining position. The Defendant No. 1 was able to dominate the will of the tenants at the air -conditioned market. The Defendant No. 1 was able to negotiate the terms and conditions of the tenancy conducive to the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 unilaterally fixed the total amount of monthly rent payable, and after such agreed rent was fixed, divide such rent into two portions, namely, service charges and air - conditioning charges according to the convenience and benefit of the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 would show rent at a low figure while keeping the air -conditioning charges disproportionately high. The plaintiffs contended that the Defendant No. 1 broke up the component of the rent into two portions ostensibly to prevent higher incidence of municipal tax for the tenants. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that since the Defendant No. 1 was in a superior bargaining position in relation to the members of the plaintiffs, the tenants did not have any option other than accepting the terms of the Defendant No. 1.;