R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

( 2 ) RULE. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

( 3 ) THE petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises under section 22 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ("the said Act" for short) as well as the orders passed by the Competent authority dated 3rd March 1999 and by the Revisional authority on 31st May 2003 on three grounds. The challenge is three-fold. Firstly, that the Competent authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings in the absence of written agreement in relation to the alleged tenancy between the parties. Secondly, the application did not disclose the rent amount, if any, agreed between the parties payable for occupation of the premises and, in the absence of the basic ingredient of the lease agreement between the parties, there was no jurisdictional fact in existence which could enable the Competent Authority to take cognisance of the complaint, and, thirdly, that the original application discloses that the petitioner had retired from the services of the responde