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 respondent on 31st december 1996 and the application was filed on 29th May 2002, i. e. much beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing such application under section 22 (2) of the said Act and there was neither prayer for condonation of delay nor the facts justifying the condonation of delay were disclosed in the application, and in those circumstances the respondent could not have been allowed to amend the plaint after service of summons to the petitioner in relation to the original plaint and there being no notice served upon the petitioner about the proposed amendment to the plaint.

( 4 ) AS regards the first ground of challenge, the learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that in order to enable the Competent Authority to assume the jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 22 of the said Act, it is necessary that tenancy in favour of the occupant of the premises has to be created by the landlord under an agreement in writing and in the absence of such agreement in writing, there could be no occasion for the Competent Authority to entertain the application for eviction under the said provision of law. Drawing attention to section 16 (f) of the said acti it was submitted that in the absence of such agreement, the landlord is not without remedy of eviction of such service tenant as the said provision comprised under section 16 empowers the landlord to seek. eviction of the service tenant, who was in service or employment of the landlord had ceased to be in service or employment of the landlord either before or after commencement of the said Act. Referring to the pleadings in the plaint, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the said pleadings apparently disclose absence of any such agreement in writing as well as even the oral agreement.

( 5 ) THE learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in case of service-tenants, there may not be any specific agreement in writing and it may form part of the service conditions and, therefore, unless the party seeking to raise objection in that regard appears before the Competent Authority and raises an issue in that regard, there could be no occasion for the applicant landlord to establish his or her case about the existence of such agreement between the parties. Since the petitioner in the case in hand did not bother to appear before the Competent Authority and to seek leave to defend in the matter, there was no occasion for the respondent to establish the case as regards the agreement in writing between the parties and such a point cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction.

( 6 ) SECTION 22 (1) of the said Act provides that where any landlord intends to let out any premises or any part thereof belonging to him, to his emp