Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the order of the District Judge, Nagpur, who had entertained a revision application under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 against an order passed by the Rent Controller on an application under Section 34(1)(d) of the Act. The Rent Controller had rejected the application for restoration of electric supply. The respondent, Narendra Mohanlal Choudhary, had filed the revision before the District Judge. The petitioner contended that no revision lies against an order on an application under Section 34(1)(d) because the word 'application' cannot be equated with 'suit' or 'proceeding' as used in Section 34(4). The Court analyzed the language of Section 34(4), which provides for revision against any decree or order in any 'suit' or 'proceeding'. It noted that Section 34(1)(d) uses the word 'application' for restoration of essential supply, and that such an application is not a suit or proceeding. The Court held that the revision under Section 34(4) is not maintainable against an order on an application under Section 34(1)(d). Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the District Judge entertaining the revision, and directed the District Judge to return the revision application to the respondent for presentation before the appropriate forum, if any. The Court also directed the Rent Controller to decide the application under Section 34(1)(d) expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Revision - Maintainability - Section 34(4) read with Section 34(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The question was whether a revision lies against an order on an application for restoration of essential supply under Section 34(1)(d). The Court held that the word 'application' in Section 34(1)(d) cannot be equated with 'suit' or 'proceeding' as used in Section 34(4), and therefore no revision lies against such an order. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether revision application under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 would lie against an order directing or rejecting an application for restoration of essential supply, e.g. electric supply, as contemplated by Section 34(1)(d) of the Act?
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the District Judge entertaining the revision, and directed the District Judge to return the revision application to the respondent for presentation before the appropriate forum, if any. The Court also directed the Rent Controller to decide the application under Section 34(1)(d) expeditiously.
Law Points
- Revision lies only against decree or order in a suit or proceeding
- not against an order on an application under Section 34(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (04) 91
WRIT PETITION NO. 5228 OF 2011
S.V. Bhutada for Petitioner, V.V. Bhangde for Respondent no.1, Mrs. Taiwade, AGP, for Respondent no.2
Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Nagpur (Multi State)
Narendra Mohanlal Choudhary, Hon'ble District Judge, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the maintainability of a revision application under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 against an order on an application for restoration of essential supply under Section 34(1)(d).
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order of the District Judge entertaining the revision application and a declaration that no revision lies against an order on an application under Section 34(1)(d).
Filing Reason
The District Judge entertained a revision application under Section 34(4) against an order of the Rent Controller rejecting an application for restoration of electric supply under Section 34(1)(d).
Previous Decisions
The Rent Controller rejected the application for restoration of electric supply. The respondent filed a revision before the District Judge, who entertained it.
Issues
Whether revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 lies against an order on an application under Section 34(1)(d) for restoration of essential supply?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the word 'application' in Section 34(1)(d) cannot be equated with 'suit' or 'proceeding' as used in Section 34(4), and therefore no revision lies.
Respondent argued that the revision is maintainable as the application under Section 34(1)(d) is a proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi
The word 'application' in Section 34(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 cannot be equated with 'suit' or 'proceeding' as used in Section 34(4) of the Act. Therefore, no revision lies under Section 34(4) against an order on an application under Section 34(1)(d).
Judgment Excerpts
The question of law that has been raised in the instant matter is as follows : 'Whether revision application u/s 34(4) of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 would lie against an order directing or rejecting an application for restoration of essential supply, e.g. electric supply, as contemplated by Section 34(1)(d) of the Act?'
The word used in sub-clause (d) is an 'application'. But under sub-section (4) revision lies only against any decree and order in any 'suit' or 'proceeding'. According to him, the word 'application' cannot be equated with the word 'suit' or 'proceeding' and, therefore, under sub-section (4) no revision would lie.
Procedural History
The Rent Controller rejected the application for restoration of electric supply under Section 34(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent filed a revision under Section 34(4) before the District Judge, who entertained it. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the maintainability of the revision.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 34(1)(d), 34(4)
