Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Namdeo Maruti Mane, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Bhoom in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 19/2016, which allowed the appeal of the respondent, Ishwar Kondiba Khose, and directed restoration of essential services (electricity and water) under Section 29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent had filed an application at Exh. 34 in Regular Civil Suit No. 73/2011 for restoration of these services, which was rejected by the Trial Court (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhoom). The appellate court reversed that decision. The High Court noted that the application under Section 29 is an independent proceeding and should not have been filed as part of the rent suit; however, the appellate court's decision on merits cured the procedural irregularity. The Court also observed that the appeal was maintainable under Section 34(1) proviso (d) of the Act. On merits, the High Court found no perversity in the appellate court's order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the restoration of essential services.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Restoration of Essential Services - Section 29, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Independent Proceeding - Application under Section 29 for restoration of essential services like electricity and water must be filed as a separate proceeding, not as part of a rent suit. The Civil Manual Clause 337 requires separate numbering for such miscellaneous applications. However, the appellate court's decision on merits cures the procedural defect. (Paras 3-5) B) Rent Control - Appeal - Section 34(1) proviso (d), Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Appeal from Order under Section 29 - An appeal lies from an order made under Section 29 to the District Court under Section 34(1) proviso (d). The appellate court has jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits. (Para 4) C) Rent Control - Restoration of Essential Services - Section 29, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Merits - The appellate court, after considering the evidence, held that the tenant is entitled to restoration of essential services. The High Court found no perversity in the appellate court's order and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for restoration of essential services can be filed as part of a rent suit, and whether the appellate court's order allowing such restoration is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appellate court's order directing restoration of essential services. The Court held that although the application under Section 29 should have been filed separately, the appellate court's decision on merits was not perverse and did not warrant interference.
Law Points
- Section 29 proceeding is independent and cannot be part of rent suit
- Section 34(1) proviso (d) appeal lies from order under Section 29
- Civil Manual Clause 337 requires separate numbering for miscellaneous applications requiring judicial inquiry
