Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Laxman Bhaguji Kawade, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 19.07.2011 passed by the Competent Authority, Pune, in Miscellaneous Application No.5/2011. The Competent Authority had allowed the obstruction application filed by respondent No.1, Dnyaneshwar Krishnaji Takalkar, who claimed to be in possession of the subject premises under a claim of right. The background facts reveal that the petitioner purchased the property from respondent No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2003 and allowed respondent No.2 to occupy the premises as a licensee for three years. Upon default in payment of license fees, the petitioner filed an eviction application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which was allowed on 29.09.2007. Respondent No.2 challenged the eviction order in a revision application, which was rejected on 08.09.2009. During the execution proceedings, respondent No.1 filed an obstruction application claiming to be in possession of the premises. The Competent Authority allowed the obstruction application, leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the obstruction application as it was not a court and could not adjudicate title disputes. The respondent contended that the authority had incidental powers to decide questions of possession. The court held that the Competent Authority, being a quasi-judicial body, has the power to entertain and adjudicate obstruction applications to effectuate its orders. The court further held that the writ petition was premature as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of revision before the Commissioner. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Obstruction Application - Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The Competent Authority has the power to entertain and adjudicate an obstruction application filed by a person claiming to be in possession of the premises under a claim of right, as the authority is not a court but a quasi-judicial body with incidental powers to effectuate its orders. The court held that the authority can decide the question of possession and grant relief to the objector if satisfied that the objector is in possession and entitled to remain in possession. (Paras 7-10) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the order was an interlocutory order and the petitioner had an alternative remedy of revision before the Commissioner. The court held that the writ petition was premature and not maintainable. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate an obstruction application filed by a person claiming to be in possession of the premises under a claim of right, and whether the impugned order granting such application is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order of the Competent Authority is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Competent Authority's power to adjudicate obstruction applications
- Right of a person in possession to resist eviction
- Maintainability of writ petition against interlocutory order
