Case Note & Summary
This criminal writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. The petitioners, comprising a partnership firm and its partners, owned hotel premises and had executed a registered leave and license agreement with respondent no. 2 on 21 April 2004 for 33 months, followed by a further agreement dated 19 January 2007 for 27 months. Multiple civil litigations ensued between the parties, including proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a civil suit for injunction which was ultimately dismissed on 20 February 2013, and a first appeal with interim applications. During the pendency of these disputes, respondent no. 2 filed a private complaint under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging failure to register the leave and license agreement. The Magistrate issued process against the petitioners on 12 May 2015 (the prayer refers to order dated 6 August 2015). The petitioners contended that Section 55 was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature as it imposed compulsory registration of leave and license agreements, inconsistent with the Indian Easements Act, 1882 and the Indian Registration Act, 1908; that it violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; and that the provision was being misused by licensees to harass landlords. They further argued that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the alleged offence of non-registration occurred in 2007, and that the proceedings were an abuse of process, relying on judgments in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharful Hqaue and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal. The State, represented by the learned Advocate General, defended the constitutional validity of Section 55, invoking the presumption of constitutionality and arguing that the petitioners had failed to establish any specific fundamental right violation, especially since the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right after the Forty-fourth Amendment. It was submitted that the provision was regulatory in nature and within legislative competence, and that the complaint was not barred by limitation as the obligation to register was a continuing one. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment. The provided judgment excerpt does not contain the court's final decision or reasoning on the merits.
Issue of Consideration
1) Whether Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is unconstitutional for lack of legislative competence and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 2) Whether the criminal proceedings in SCC No. 3181 of 2015 under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 read with Section 34 IPC should be quashed as time-barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and as an abuse of process.
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (12) 44
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1150 of 2015
S.S. Shinde, Mangesh S. Patil
A.P. Bhandari (Petitioners), Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, A.B. Girase, Akshay Shinde (Respondent No.1), A.P. Avhad (Respondent No.2)
M/s. Labhshetwar & Sakkarwar Constructions, Vitthal Ganpatrao Labhshetwar, Mahesh Vitthalrao Labhshetwar, Shanta Vitthalrao Labhshetwar, Madhuri w/o Mahesh Labhshetwar, Vijay s/o Ramdas Sakkarwar, Vijayalaxmi Ramdas Sakkarwar
The State of Maharashtra and Ravindra s/o Vitthalrao Songire
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 55 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under said section for non-registration of leave and license agreement.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners seek striking down of Section 55 as unconstitutional and quashing of order dated 06.08.2015 (and proceedings) passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, in SCC No. 3181 of 2015.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contend that Section 55 is beyond legislative competence, imposes unreasonable restrictions, and that the criminal complaint is time-barred and filed as an abuse of process.
Previous Decisions
Multiple civil proceedings: MARJI No.133/2009 order for deposit; Arbitration Appeal No.3/2009 withdrawn; RCS No.1001/2009 dismissed on 20.02.2013; RCA No.66/2013 temporary injunction allowed; Appeal from Order No.36/2013 disposed of with liberty; Application Exh.63 partly allowed. Magistrate issued process on 12.05.2015 in SCC No.3181/2015.
Issues
Whether Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, is unconstitutional for lack of legislative competence.
Whether Section 55 violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Whether the criminal proceedings in SCC No.3181/2015 are barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process and liable to be quashed.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: Section 55 is beyond legislative competence as it is inconsistent with Indian Easements Act and Registration Act; it imposes unreasonable restrictions on landlords; it is misused by licensees; the complaint is time-barred; proceedings are abuse of process.
Respondents: There is presumption of constitutionality; party challenging must prove transgression; no specific fundamental right violated; right to property not fundamental after 44th Amendment; Section 55 is regulatory and within legislative competence; complaint is not barred by limitation as offence is continuing; proceedings are not abuse.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 be struck down on the ground that, the same is beyond legislative competence of State Legislature.
The said provision imposes unjust, unfair and unreasonable restriction on the landlords/ licensors.
learned Advocate General submitted that it is settled principle of law that there is always presumption of constitutionality of the Statute and the burden is upon the person who questions it, to show that there has been clear transgression of Constitutional principles.
Procedural History
On 21.04.2004, a registered leave and license agreement for 33 months was executed. Another agreement on 19.01.2007 for 27 months followed. Respondent No.2 filed MARJI No.133/2009 under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, and on 27.04.2009 the court directed deposit of Rs.7,00,000/-, which was made. Respondent No.2 filed Arbitration Appeal No.3/2009 before the High Court but later withdrew it. On 26.11.2009, Respondent No.2 filed RCS No.1001/2009 for injunction; temporary injunction was granted, and the petitioners' Misc. Civil Appeal No.26/2010 was rejected on 06.04.2010. The petitioners filed WP No.3668/2010, and a consent order was passed on 03.05.2010. RCS No.1001/2009 was dismissed on 20.02.2013. Respondent No.2 filed RCA No.66/2013, obtained a temporary injunction, and the petitioners' Appeal from Order No.36/2013 was disposed of with liberty to seek escalation of compensation. Application Exh.63 was partly allowed, fixing compensation at Rs.4,00,000/- from 01.04.2015; review was dismissed. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 filed SCC No.3181/2015 under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 read with Section 34 IPC. On 12.05.2015, the Magistrate issued process (the prayer mentions order dated 06.08.2015). The present writ petition was then filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 55 and seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 55
- Indian Penal Code: 34
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 9
- Indian Registration Act, 1908: 17
- Indian Easements Act, 1882:
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 468, 482
- Constitution of India: 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 227
