Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Rameshchandra D. Padia and Chandaya B. Karkera, filed two writ petitions challenging a common order dated 24 February 2014 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The impugned order held that revision petitions under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) were maintainable to challenge orders made by the competent authority under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). The respondents, Jayantilal Nandlal Kothari (deceased) through his legal heirs, had instituted eviction proceedings against the petitioners in 1992 and 1996 under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent Act. The competent authority passed orders in those proceedings. The respondents then filed revision petitions before the Additional Divisional Commissioner under Section 44 of the MRC Act, along with applications for condonation of delay. The Commissioner, by the impugned order, held that the revisions were maintainable. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that no revision petitions were maintainable under Section 44 of the MRC Act in view of Sections 46 and 58 of the same Act. The Court examined the provisions: Section 46 of the MRC Act repeals the Bombay Rent Act, and Section 58 saves certain proceedings, including those under Section 13A2, but only for limited purposes. The Court noted that the MRC Act does not provide for any revision against orders passed under the saved provisions of the repealed Act. Therefore, the revision petitions under Section 44 were not maintainable. The Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the revision petitions and the orders on condonation of delay. The Court did not go into the merits of the delay issue as the fundamental question of maintainability was decided against the respondents.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Maintainability of Revision - Repeal and Savings - Sections 44, 46, 58 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and Section 13A2 Bombay Rent, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The issue was whether revision petitions under Section 44 of the MRC Act, 1999 are maintainable against orders under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The Court held that in view of Sections 46 and 58 of the MRC Act, the Bombay Rent Act stands repealed and proceedings under Section 13A2 are saved only for limited purposes; no revision lies under Section 44 of MRC Act against such orders. The impugned order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner was quashed. (Paras 3-10)
B) Rent Control - Condonation of Delay - Revision - Jurisdiction - Section 44 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The Additional Divisional Commissioner had considered applications for condonation of delay in filing revisions under Section 44 of MRC Act. The Court held that since the revisions themselves were not maintainable, the question of condonation of delay did not arise. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether revision petitions under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are maintainable to impugn orders made by the competent authority under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 24 February 2014 made by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, is quashed and set aside. The revision petitions filed by the respondents before the Additional Divisional Commissioner are held not maintainable and are dismissed. Consequently, the orders on the applications for condonation of delay are also set aside.
Law Points
- Repeal and savings provisions
- maintainability of revision
- Section 44 MRC Act 1999
- Section 13A2 Bombay Rent Act 1947
- Section 46 MRC Act
- Section 58 MRC Act
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (06) 47
Writ Petition No. 5079 of 2014 and Writ Petition No. 5080 of 2014
Mr. Dakshesh Vyas with Mr. D. S. Sabnis i/b. Lex Firmus for Petitioners. None for Respondents.
Rameshchandra D. Padia and Chandaya B. Karkera
Jayantilal Nandlal Kothari (deceased) through his legal heirs Smt. Kanchanben wd/o. Jayantilal Kothari & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging an order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner holding that revision petitions under Section 44 of the MRC Act, 1999 are maintainable against orders under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the impugned order dated 24 February 2014 and a declaration that the revision petitions were not maintainable.
Filing Reason
The Additional Divisional Commissioner erroneously held that revisions under Section 44 of MRC Act were maintainable against orders under Section 13A2 of Bombay Rent Act, despite the repeal and savings provisions in Sections 46 and 58 of MRC Act.
Previous Decisions
The competent authority under Section 13A2 of Bombay Rent Act had passed orders in eviction proceedings instituted in 1992 and 1996. The respondents filed revision petitions under Section 44 of MRC Act with applications for condonation of delay. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, by order dated 24 February 2014, held the revisions maintainable.
Issues
Whether revision petitions under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are maintainable to impugn orders made by the competent authority under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that no revision petitions were maintainable under Section 44 of the MRC Act in view of Sections 46 and 58 of the MRC Act, which repeal the Bombay Rent Act and save proceedings only for limited purposes without providing for any revision.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 46 of the MRC Act, 1999, the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 stands repealed. Section 58 of the MRC Act saves certain proceedings under the repealed Act, including those under Section 13A2, but only for limited purposes. The MRC Act does not provide for any revision against orders passed under the saved provisions of the repealed Act. Therefore, revision petitions under Section 44 of the MRC Act are not maintainable against orders under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent Act.
Judgment Excerpts
Both these petitions question common order dated 24 February 2014 made by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, holding that the revisions petitions under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC) are maintainable to impugn orders made by the competent authority under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act).
In these cases, the Court is really not concerned with the issue of delay, because the fundamental question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no revisions petitions were at all maintainable before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, under Section 44 of the MRC in view of the provisions contained in Sections 46 and 58 of the MRC.
Procedural History
In 1992 and 1996, respondents instituted eviction proceedings under Section 13A2 of Bombay Rent Act against petitioners. Competent authority passed orders. Respondents filed revision petitions under Section 44 of MRC Act before Additional Divisional Commissioner with applications for condonation of delay. On 24 February 2014, Commissioner held revisions maintainable. Petitioners filed writ petitions in Bombay High Court challenging that order. On 28 August 2014, Court put parties to notice that petitions would be disposed at admission stage. On 25 June 2015, Court allowed petitions.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 44, 46, 58
- Bombay Rent, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 13A2
