ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal arises out of an application submitted by the appellants under Section 1 3-A (2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Section 13-A was inserted in the Bombay Rent Control Act by the Maharashtra Act No. 18 of 1987. The case of the appellants is that Respondents I and 2 are licensees in respect of a flat measuring 610 sq. feet in a building that has been constructed by the appellants. It is claimed that the said licence has been terminated by notice and proceedings (LE Suit No. 7 of 1988) have been initiated before the competent authority, Konkan Division, Bombay, for recovery of possession of the flat from the respondents. Before the competent authority, the respondents raised a preliminary objection a regarding jurisdiction of the competent authority to entertain the application on the ground that the provisions of Section 1 3-A (2) are applicable only to licences granted after the coming into force of the said provision and since the licence of the respondents was granted earlier, the said provision could not be applied. The said objection was rejected by the competent authority by order dated 6-7-1990, and it was held that the provisions of Section I 3-A (2) were applicable to licences granted prior to the coming into force of the said provision provided the proceedings were initiated after the said provision came into force. The respondents filed a petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 4608 of 1990) in the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution wherein they assailed the correctness of the said view of the competent authority. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge of the High Court has affirmed the view of the competent authority that the provisions of Section I 3-A (2) were applicable in the present case even though licence was granted prior to the coming into force of the said provision since the proceedings were initiated after the said provision came into force. The High Court has, however, considered the question of maintainability of the application submitted by the appellants on the ground that there was no valid termination of the licence granted in favour of Respondents 1 and 2. The High Court has found that the licence could be terminated by the appellants only if Respondents I and 2 had committed breach of any of the terms of the licence and that no case has been made out by the appellants that the respondents had committed any breach of the agreement. On that view, the High Court has held that the application submitted by the appellants was not maintainable and allowing the writ application the High Court has dismissed the said application filed by the appellants under Section 13-A (2).

4. We find that the only issue that had been dealt with by the competent authority in the order dated 6-7-1990 was whether the provisions of Section 13-A (2) were applicable to a case where the licence was granted prior to coming into force of Section 13-A (2) but the proceedings had been initiated after the said section had come into force. The competent authority decided the said issue in favour of the appellant and held that Section 13-A (2) would be applicable in such a case. The High Court has agreed with the said view of the competent authority. Since the other questions relating to the merits had not been considered by the competent authority, the High Court was in 9 error in considering the questions which had yet to be considered by the competent authority and disposing of the application filed by the appellants under Section 13-A (2) on merits. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the decision of the High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Section 1 3-A (2) that was pending before the competent authority. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the respondents to contest the application submitted by the appellants under Section 13-A (2) by raising all pleas that are available to them