Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Vijesh Chawla, was the respondent in an application filed by Jacob Verghese under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, seeking possession of Flat No.G/158 in Oshiwara Tarapore Garden CHS Ltd., Mumbai. The application was based on a Leave and Licence Agreement dated 10-12-1994 for the period 10-12-1994 to 9-11-1995. The Petitioner refused to vacate, leading to the filing of Application No.25 of 2013 before the Competent Authority. Upon service of summons, the Petitioner filed an application for leave to defend under Section 43 of the Act, raising defences including an alleged Agreement for Sale and a Sale Deed executed in his favour, along with documents such as letters from Army Headquarters and sanction for membership from the cooperative society. The Competent Authority rejected the leave to defend by order dated 4-7-2014, without considering the documents. The Petitioner filed a Revision Application under Section 44 of the Act before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, which was also rejected on 26-11-2015. The Petitioner then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The High Court found that both the Competent Authority and the Additional Commissioner failed to consider the documents filed by the Petitioner, which disclosed a triable issue. The Court set aside both orders and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority for fresh consideration of the leave to defend application, directing that the documents be examined and a reasoned order be passed within three months. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Leave to Defend - Section 43 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Competent Authority's Duty - The Competent Authority must consider all documents filed by the tenant in support of the application for leave to defend before rejecting it. In this case, the Competent Authority rejected the leave to defend without examining the Agreement for Sale, Sale Deed, and other documents, which disclosed a triable issue regarding ownership. Held that the order was unsustainable and remanded for fresh consideration (Paras 5-7). B) Revision - Scope of Revisional Powers - Section 44 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The Additional Commissioner, while exercising revisional powers, failed to correct the error of the Competent Authority in not considering the documents. The revisional order also suffered from the same infirmity. Held that the revisional order was liable to be set aside (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority and the Additional Commissioner erred in rejecting the Petitioner's application for leave to defend without properly considering the documents filed in support of the defence, particularly the alleged Agreement for Sale and Sale Deed.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders dated 4-7-2014 and 26-11-2015, and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority for fresh consideration of the leave to defend application. The Competent Authority was directed to consider the documents filed by the Petitioner and pass a reasoned order within three months.
Law Points
- Leave to defend under Section 43 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Competent Authority's duty to consider documents
- Revision under Section 44 of the Act
- Writ jurisdiction against revisional order
