Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Latika Joshi and Shubhanshu Joshi, tenants of premises in Nagpur, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 30/05/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur (respondent No.1), who rejected their revision application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The revision application was filed against an order of the Competent Authority (respondent No.2). The principal ground of challenge was that the impugned order was passed in the absence of the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that on 20th May, 2011, the matter was adjourned to 10/06/2011, but the Additional Commissioner preponed the hearing to 27/05/2011 due to a direction from this Court in Writ Petition No.1977/2011 to decide the revision by 30th May, 2011. The petitioners alleged that notice of preponement was not served on them but was purportedly served on a Chowkidar, whom they denied having at their residential premises. The court noted that at an interlocutory stage, the petitioners had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.1977/2011, wherein directions were issued for parties to appear on 9th May, 2011 and for the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision by 30th May, 2011. The court observed that the petitioners were tenants and the revision application was pending. The court found that the order was passed without giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, as the notice of preponement was not properly served. The court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 30/05/2011, and directed the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision application afresh after hearing all parties, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Revisional Authority - Natural Justice - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 44 - The revisional authority preponed the hearing of the revision application from 10/06/2011 to 27/05/2011 without serving notice on the petitioners, who were tenants. The notice was allegedly served on a Chowkidar, which the petitioners denied having. The court held that the order passed in the absence of the petitioners, without proper service, violated principles of natural justice and was liable to be set aside. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional authority's order rejecting the revision application in the absence of the petitioners, after preponing the hearing without proper service of notice, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 30/05/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur is quashed and set aside. The Additional Commissioner is directed to decide the revision application afresh after hearing all the parties, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Service of notice
- Preponement of hearing
- Revisional authority's duty
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 120
Writ Petition No.2835/2011
Shri Masood Shareef for petitioners, Ms.T. Khan for respondent Nos.1 & 2, Shri N. Bhisikar for respondent No.3
Smt. Latika W/o Sharad Joshi and Shubhanshu s/o Sharad Joshi
Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Dn., Competent Authority, and Ravindra S/o Vithal Shrikhande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Additional Commissioner rejecting the petitioners' revision application under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 30/05/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner and a direction to decide the revision application afresh after hearing them.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' revision application was rejected in their absence after the hearing was preponed without proper service of notice.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Commissioner had passed the impugned order on 30/05/2011 rejecting the revision application. Earlier, in Writ Petition No.1977/2011, this Court had directed the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision by 30th May, 2011.
Issues
Whether the order of the Additional Commissioner rejecting the revision application in the absence of the petitioners, after preponing the hearing without proper service of notice, is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the matter was adjourned to 10/06/2011, but the Additional Commissioner preponed it to 27/05/2011 without serving notice on them; the notice was allegedly served on a Chowkidar, which they denied having.
The respondents did not make any specific submissions recorded in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
An order passed by a revisional authority without affording an opportunity of hearing to the party, especially when the hearing was preponed without proper service of notice, violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
The principal ground of challenge in the above petition is that the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the said revision application, in the absence of the petitioners.
It is the case of the petitioners that the notice of preponement was not served upon them, but was purportedly served on some Chowkidar whose endorsement is found on the said notice.
In my view, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a revision application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition No.1977/2011, which directed the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision by 30th May, 2011. The Additional Commissioner preponed the hearing from 10/06/2011 to 27/05/2011 and passed the impugned order on 30/05/2011 rejecting the revision in the absence of the petitioners. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 44
