High Court of Bombay Allows Writ Petition, Sets Aside Order Granting Leave to Defend in Eviction Proceeding Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act; Restores Original Eviction Order. The Court holds that the statutory limitation of 30 days under Section 43(4)(a) for a licensee to seek leave to defend is inflexible and cannot be extended under the Limitation Act, 1963, nor does a remand order revive the period.

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a dispute between a landlord and a licensee concerning possession of a flat in Pune. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, owned Flat No. 6 in Sunda Heights, Pune. The respondent had taken the premises on leave and licence for 11 months from 21/12/1999, but after expiry of the licence, failed to vacate. The petitioner sent a notice on 29/12/2000, but the respondent neither replied nor vacated. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 before the Competent Authority, Pune, seeking eviction. Summons were served on the respondent on 6/7/2002. Under Section 43(4)(a), the respondent was required to file an affidavit seeking leave to defend within 30 days of service, failing which the landlord's statements would be deemed admitted. The respondent did file a written statement but failed to apply for leave to defend and file the necessary affidavit within the prescribed period. The Competent Authority, by order dated 24/9/2002, allowed the eviction application on the ground that the respondent had not obtained leave to defend, thereby admitting the petitioner's case. The respondent then filed a revision application before the Appellate Competent Authority, Pune. By consent, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter on 23/7/2004, to give the respondent an opportunity to adduce evidence, subject to deposit of Rs.1,40,000. After remand, the respondent filed an application for leave to defend, which the Competent Authority allowed on merits, holding that the matter was for fresh hearing and that the application for leave to defend should be considered on its merits because the respondent contended that the leave and licence agreement was in reality a sell-purchase transaction and his signature had been obtained by false representation. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court. The core legal question was whether the thirty-day limitation for seeking leave to defend could be extended by applying the Limitation Act, 1963, or whether the remand order gave the respondent a fresh right to apply for leave. The petitioner argued that the limitation period was absolute and not subject to condonation, relying on Supreme Court precedents including Prakash H. Jain v. Marie Fernandes. The respondent argued that the remand revived the limitation period and that justice required leave be granted, citing John Impex (P) Ltd. v. Surinder Singh. The High Court examined the scheme of Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which provides for summary disposal of eviction applications. The court noted that the legislature intended to give speedy relief to landlords against licensees who refuse to vacate. Under Section 43(4)(a), the licensee must file an affidavit within 30 days of service of summons, failing which the landlord's statements are deemed admitted and an eviction order must follow. The court held that this limitation period is inbuilt and absolute; the Competent Authority is not a 'court' for purposes of the Limitation Act, and the special procedure overrides general laws. Therefore, the delay cannot be condoned. The court further held that the remand order did not revive the right to apply for leave or reset the limitation period; the original default continued. The High Court set aside the Competent Authority's order granting leave to defend, restored the original eviction order dated 24/9/2002, and directed the refund of the deposited amount to the respondent.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Competent Authority allowing the leave to defend is set aside. The original order of eviction dated 24/9/2002 is restored. The amount of Rs.1,40,000 deposited by the respondent is directed to be returned to him.

Law Points