The Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra government's decision to increase the lease rent in Mumbai's Bandra based on the Ready Reckoner (RR) rate, determining that it was not arbitrary given that the suburb is a high-end real estate area. However, a division bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sunderesan stated that the rent cannot be revised every five years as per the government's resolutions and must remain the same for the entire tenure of the lease agreement. On July 10 (Wednesday), the court disposed of several petitions filed by housing societies in Bandra challenging the government resolutions of 2006, 2012, and 2018, which revised the rent on long-term leases granted to them. The court noted that the societies had been enjoying large portions of land in the prime location of Bandra at minimal cost. The High Court remarked that if one breaks down what these individuals are now paying for government-leased land, it can hardly be considered exorbitant. The government's policy decision to adopt the RR to determine the lease rent payable was addressed through these resolutions. The societies claimed that the resolutions were illegal as they increased the lease rent by 400 to 1900 times, which they deemed exorbitant. However, the bench observed that, according to a government-submitted chart, each society's liability towards the revised lease rent was a maximum of Rs 6,000 per month, and in some cases even less than Rs 2,000 per month. Considering the high value and sought-after nature of the properties in Bandra Bandstand, the court concluded that the rent increase could not be described as exorbitant, extortionate, or manifestly arbitrary. The court also noted that since 1951, when their leases were renewed, the societies had been paying rent fixed at that time. Given the value of money and inflation, and the fact that no revision had been made, these lessees had effectively used the properties virtually for free for 30 years, even after their leases expired in 1981. Taking these factors into account, the bench asserted that it could not be said that the increase in the revised rent was so exorbitant or manifestly arbitrary as to require interference. The court stated that if individuals want to hold large parcels of land in a prime locality and enjoy this luxury, it is only fair they pay a reasonable sum, which is now the revised amount. The court clarified that while the law requires the government to be fair and reasonable in dealing with its citizens, it does not imply that the government must do charity. The High Court noted that although the government should not act as a private landlord with profit as the prime motive, it is still entitled to a reasonable return on its land. Given the limited supply of land in an island city like Mumbai, the lease rentals charged to societies occupying such a finite resource must be commensurate with the benefits they enjoy. However, the bench noted that the provision of rent revision in the resolutions would contradict the lease agreement and quashed that clause from the government resolutions. The court stated that just as lessees cannot unilaterally seek a modification in the contract under the guise of fairness, the State cannot unilaterally modify the contract entered into with the lessees.