JUDGMENT - SURESH H., J.:---This is a petition filed by the petitioners against an order of fixation of interim standard rent by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The relevant facts are as follows: 2. The present respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Ladkubai Narayan Gavand. The said deceased Ladkubai had granted certain lease-hold in respect of a certain plot of land, under a deed of lease dated 29th January, 1959, to one Khandubhai R. Patel who was carrying on business in the name and style of Sharad Construction Company as the sole proprietor thereof. The said lease was in respect of the land admeasuring about 30,000 sq. yards or thereabout. Under the said deed of lease, the rent was fixed at Rs. 600/- per month for the land and at Rs. 75/- per month, respect of certain chawls which were existing on the land, for the period of 40 years. The lease also provided that it could be renewed for a further period of 40 years or in perpetuity, but subject to such rent as shall be fixed and may be agreed upon by and between the parties as provided under the deed of lease. 3. It appears that the said Khandubhai R. Patel admitted certain other persons as partners under a deed of partnership dated 22nd January, 1980. It further appears that certain partners, who had initially joined, also retired from the said firm. Thereafter certain disputes arose between the lessor and the lessees and finally it resulted in a separate deed of lease dated 8th December, 1981, whereby the earlier deed of lease came to an end and the parties thereto surrendered their rights for the unexpired term of the said lease dated 19th January, 1959 and thereafter, the Lessor, granted unto the lessees a fresh lease of the same land for a period of 55 years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said document. 4. The document shows that the rent for a period of six months commencing from 1-4-1981 was Rs. 675/- per month. Thereafter, for the next 19 years and six months, the rent has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month and for the next 20 years, the rent is at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month and for the next 15 years, the rent is fixed at the rate of Rs. 675/- per month. Thereafter, for the next 19 years and six months, the rent has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month and for the next 20 years, the rent is at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month and for the next 15 years, the rent is fixed at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per month. 5. The lessees were, of course, builders and the object of the lease was to utilise the land for the purpose of erection of buildings and sell the same on ownership basis to various intending flat purchasers and finally to form either joint stock companies or co-operative societies and to have the land demised upto them. 6. It appears that as per the said agreement, the petitioners herein initially deposited a sum of Rs. 72,000/-. He did not pay anything thereafter. But, instead, the petitioners filed a standard rent application, being R.A.N. Application No. 277/SR of 1982 in the Court of Small Causes for fixation of standard rent. That was on or about 28th May, 1982. Thereafter, the lessors, served a notice dated 25th January, 1984 purporting to be a notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and demanding Rs. 1,02,000/ as arrears of rent upto 31st December 1983 at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month as per the said deed of lease. On 27th February, 1984, that is to say, within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice, the petitioners filed an application for fixation of interim standard rent under section 11, sub-section (4) of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial Judge, by an order dated 17th February, 1986, fixed the interim standard rent at Rs. 6,000/- per month and gave directions to the petitioners to pay the arrears by a certain date. 7. It is against this order, the petitioners have filed the present civil revision application. Mr. Tunara, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the standard rent could be the rent at which the premises were first let out as provided under section 5, sub-section (10), sub-clause (b)(i) or (b)(iii) of the Bombay Rent Act. He stated that initially there was a deed of lease in the year 1959 when the rent was Rs. 600/- per month. Therefore, that should be considered as the standard rent. He stated that initially there was a deed of lease in the year 1959 when the rent was Rs. 600/- per month. Therefore, that should be considered as the standard rent. He submitted that even under the deed of lease dated 8th December, 1981, initially, the rent was Rs. 675/- per month from 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1981 and that, therefore, he submitted that the standard rent cannot be in excess of the said amount. He then drew my attention to section 7 of the Bombay Rent Act and submitted that the landlord has no right to demand any amount in excess of the standard rent or the permitted increases, as provided under the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the demand on the part of the respondent at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month was clearly in excess of the standard rent, which according to him, could be at the highest Rs. 675/- per month. 8. Mr. Tunara further submitted that the learned Judge is clearly in error when he stated that the deed of lease should be taken into account, which fixes the rent at a higher rate after the initial period of six months. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge fell in error when he gave a finding that the earlier lease deed dated 1-1-1959 had come to an end and the parties were bound by the terms of the second deed of lease. 9. Relying on an old judgment in the case of (Chapsey Umersey v. Keshavji)1, reported in 1925(23) Bom.L.R. 133, Mr. Tunara submitted that the standard rent is to be fixed in relation to the premises and not in relation to persons, and can, therefore, be only one and not varying as between different individuals. He also submitted that the whole object of the Rent Act is to prevent the tenants being made to pay rent which the legislature considers excessive or unreasonable. 10. I wish the matter could be that simple, as submitted by Mr. Tunara. This is a case where a builder enters into an agreement with the land owner and instead of having an agreement to purchase the property on an outright sale basis, he enters into an agreement to have the property on lease-hold basis. 10. I wish the matter could be that simple, as submitted by Mr. Tunara. This is a case where a builder enters into an agreement with the land owner and instead of having an agreement to purchase the property on an outright sale basis, he enters into an agreement to have the property on lease-hold basis. The deed of lease in terms mentions that the lease is for the purpose of erecting structures and buildings and the lessees are given powers to sell the tenements on ownership basis. It further says that on such sale or assignment, assignees shall observe and perform the terms and conditions of the lease. It also contemplates, as usual in the case of sale of flats on ownership basis, the formation of Co-operative Housing Society or Limited Company of purchasers. In other words, on such formation of Co-operative Society, the petitioners will walk out of the scene collecting their share of profit like any other builder, as under the law, they are bound to transfer the property to such a society. 11. If one looks at this agreement and the preamble thereto, it will show that the initial rent as provided under this deed of lease is as hereunder : "For a period of 55 years commencing from the 1st day of April, 1981 yielding and paying therefore during the period of first six months rent at the rate of Rs. 675/- (Rupees six hundred and seventy five only) per month and during the next twenty years rent at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) per month and during the next fifteen years rent at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per month, to be paid without any deductions." This is the initial letting and the rates are as specified in this clause. The initial letting itself fixes the rent to be given from time to time. Initial letting is always on a bargain. The rent could be any amount the parties might agree. It could be on a monthly basis, on a yearly basis, or on a staggered basis at different rates at various stages of the duration of the lease. It could even be on a capitalized basis or on a premium. What is important is that all these terms must be found at the time of initial letting itself. It could be on a monthly basis, on a yearly basis, or on a staggered basis at different rates at various stages of the duration of the lease. It could even be on a capitalized basis or on a premium. What is important is that all these terms must be found at the time of initial letting itself. However, after such fixation of rent under the deed of lease, if the lessor demands an increase over and above what is mentioned in the deed, perhaps, it could be said that the case is violative of section 7 of the Act. For example, if under the deed of lease, where the lessor is entitled to claim Rs. 6,000/- per month at a given point of time, demands a higher amount, then, in such an event it could be said that he is not entitled to claim such a higher rent, as the same is not permissible under section 7 of the Act. But just because the initial letting itself provides for a phased increase of rent from time to time, it cannot be said that lessor is acting in contravention of section 7 of the Act. 12. The Rent Act is essentially concerned with the tenements which are let out to tenants at a rent which is more or less fixed at the initial letting rate. Such a tenant has no right to transfer or erect or construct or sell any part of the premises to any other person, unless in such cases the landlord consents. There is a restraint on the tenants. Similarly, there is also a restraint on the landlord from demanding any rent higher than the rent as provided initially at the time of letting out the property. Therefore, when the legislature says that the rent shall be as on the date of the "first letting" of the premises, it must necessarily mean the rent as provided in the first deed of lease. The deed of lease itself may provide for various amounts payable at different periods. Therefore, when the legislature says that the rent shall be as on the date of the "first letting" of the premises, it must necessarily mean the rent as provided in the first deed of lease. The deed of lease itself may provide for various amounts payable at different periods. I cannot understand as to how the lessee can object to the same and say that even though the bargain was as provided under the deed of lease, he is not bound by such a bargain, all because the initial rent was less than the rent payable at a later stage, which was agreed to as from first date itself to be paid to the lessor. 13. Mr. Tunara says that the earlier agreement provided for a rent of Rs. 675/- per month, whereas the present deed provides for a higher rent, which in law, cannot be done. But what he forgets is the object of section 7 of the Act, which is plainly to prevent exploitation of the tenants by the landlords. Where accommodation is scarce, if the landlords are allowed to increase the rent over and above the standard rent with the impending threat of the tenants being thrown out, if they are unable to pay, the tenants will be ultimately on the street. In the present case, there is no question of such exploitation, the new deed of lease being on a free bargain. Moreover, the purpose of the earlier lease was to permit the lessee to develop the property, which purpose was not carried out at all. That is how the earlier lessee surrendered the lease for the unexpired term of the lease, which was voluntary. Thereafter the present petitioners voluntarily entered into the present deed of lease, for the same purpose. Therefore, the learned Judge is right when he says that the earlier deed is irrelevant. Since the purpose of the earlier lease had failed and the new deed was entered into on a free bargain, it must necessarily be held that the new deed itself is the first letting. 14. Even otherwise a revision application is not to be granted unless it can be said that the impugned order is patently unjust. No injustice is there in the present case. Here is a builder who acquired the property with a view to develop it and make money. 14. Even otherwise a revision application is not to be granted unless it can be said that the impugned order is patently unjust. No injustice is there in the present case. Here is a builder who acquired the property with a view to develop it and make money. He now finds it difficult to develop the property. That is no ground for the purpose of saying that he would not pay the rent as bargained under the deed of lease. If he is not to develop the property, it is for him to walk out of the property. But, certainly, he cannot say that he will hold on to the property and yet would not pay the rent as agreed under the deed of lease. 15. In the result, this petition is dismissed with costs. At this stage, Mr. Tunara applies that the operation of this order be stayed for a period of eight weeks from today. Mr. Abhyankar opposes. P.C. : Operation of this order is stayed for a period of four weeks from today. Petition dismissed. -----