Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Deepak N. Gulwani, a tenant, challenged three orders: (1) an order dated 15-4-2014 allowing the respondent-landlord's application to proceed ex parte against the petitioner; (2) an order dated 8-5-2014 refusing to take the petitioner's written statement on record as it was not filed within 30 days of service of summons; and (3) an order dated 29-9-2016 dismissing the revision application against the order dated 8-5-2014. The dispute arose from eviction proceedings under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Competent Authority had allowed the landlord's application to proceed ex parte and refused to accept the written statement. The Additional Commissioner upheld that decision. The High Court considered Section 43(4) of the Act, which requires a tenant to file an affidavit stating grounds of defense within 30 days of service of summons to contest eviction. The court noted that the petitioner had appeared and sought time, and the delay in filing the written statement was not intentional. The court held that the petitioner should be permitted to file the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Competent Authority was directed to proceed with the eviction case in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction Proceedings - Filing of Written Statement - Section 43(4) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The tenant must file an affidavit stating grounds of defense within 30 days of service of summons to contest eviction - The Competent Authority refused to take the written statement on record as it was not filed within 30 days - The Revisionary Authority dismissed the revision - Held that the tenant should be permitted to file the written statement subject to payment of costs, as the delay was not intentional and the tenant had appeared and sought time (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant can be permitted to file his written statement beyond the 30-day period prescribed under Section 43(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and whether the Competent Authority and Revisionary Authority erred in refusing to take the written statement on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and permitted the petitioner to file his written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. The Competent Authority was directed to proceed with the eviction case in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 43(4) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- condonation of delay
- filing of written statement
- eviction proceedings
- tenant's right to contest
