Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manu Madavi, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04/07/2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, which held that her revision application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was not maintainable. The background is that respondent No.1, Nilima Khairkar, owned a property and entered into a leave and licence agreement with respondent No.2, IRCON International Ltd., on 18/08/2010 for 11 months from 01/04/2010 to 28/02/2011. After the licence period expired, respondent No.2 did not vacate, leading respondent No.1 to file eviction proceedings under Section 24 of the Act before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority allowed the application on 14/01/2019, directing respondent No.2 to vacate within 90 days and pay damages. Respondent No.2 challenged this order by filing a revision under Section 44, which was pending. Separately, the petitioner also filed a revision under Section 44, claiming that she was in possession of the suit premises based on an oral agreement with respondent No.1 and had paid rent of Rs.2,19,600/- for the period from 01/03/2011 to 28/02/2013. She contended that she was not liable to be evicted. Respondent No.1 raised an objection to the maintainability of the petitioner's revision. The Additional Commissioner, by the impugned order, upheld the objection and dismissed the revision as not maintainable. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The High Court examined the scope of Section 44 of the Act, which provides for revision against orders of the Competent Authority. The Court noted that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Competent Authority. The eviction order was passed against respondent No.2, and the petitioner was claiming independent possession through an alleged oral agreement with the licensor. The Court held that Section 44 does not permit a stranger to the proceedings to file a revision. The remedy of revision is available only to a party to the proceedings or a person who is a legal representative or assignee of a party. The petitioner's claim, if any, must be agitated in separate proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Revision - Maintainability - Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The petitioner, who was not a party to the eviction proceedings before the Competent Authority, filed a revision under Section 44 challenging the eviction order. The Additional Commissioner held the revision not maintainable. The High Court upheld this, reasoning that Section 44 allows revision only by a party to the proceedings or a person aggrieved who is a legal representative or assignee of a party. A stranger claiming independent possession cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 4-6) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Licence Agreement - Sections 24 and 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The respondent No.1 (licensor) obtained an eviction order against respondent No.2 (licensee) under Section 24. The petitioner claimed possession under an oral agreement with the licensor. The Court held that the petitioner's remedy, if any, lies in separate proceedings and not by way of revision under Section 44. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a revision application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is maintainable at the instance of a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the Competent Authority.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 04/07/2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, holding the revision application not maintainable, is upheld.
Law Points
- Revision under Section 44 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 is maintainable only by a party to the proceedings before the Competent Authority
- A person claiming through a party may be entitled to file revision if they are a legal representative or assignee
- A stranger to the proceedings cannot file revision under Section 44
