1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.3.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, in a Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.3.2006 passed by the Competent Authority, directing the petitioner to vacate the flat in question and pay damages, which Revision Application came to be rejected.

3. The flat in question is Flat No.1, Ground Floor, S.Y. Hilltop Plot No. 98, Kauser Bagh Co-oop. Hsg. Society Ltd., Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411 048 (‘the said flat’ for short) which is held by the Respondent on ownership basis. The petitioner was inducted in the said flat on the basis of a leave and license agreement some time in the year 1998. The eviction of the petitioner is sought on the basis of another agreement of leave and license dated 1.7.2004 between the same parties under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 (‘the said Act’ for short), for which an Application was filed before the Competent Authority under Section 42 of the said Act. The period of license under the agreement was 11 months and the license fee was Rs. 2500/-. The respondent opposed the Application by filing his reply. The petitioner was granted leave to defend the application. After hearing both the parties finally, the Competent Authority was pleased to pass an order directing the petitioner to vacate the said flat and also directing the petitioner to pay damages of Rs. 5,000/- per month from 1.6.2005 till actual delivery of possession.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Competent Authority, the petitioner filed a Revision Application before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, (‘Revisional Authority’ for short), which came to be dismissed by the impugned order; hence this petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, took exception to the fact that the impugned order was passed by the Revisional Authority after lapse of almost 5 months from 18.10.2007, when the matter was reserved for judgment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on 18.10.2007 when the matter was kept for arguments, the petitioner filed an application for adjournment in the said Revision Application, as the advocate for the petitioner was in personal difficulty and had gone to Nandurbar. The said application, however, was rejected by the Revisional Authority and the matter was reserved for judgment. It is submitted that no opportunity was given to the advocate for the petitioner to argue the matter and there was no justification for the Revisional Authority to show haste in closing the case, when for about five months thereafter, the judgment and order was not pronounced by the Revisional Authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after lapse of almost five months, there was every likelihood that the Revisional Authority would have not remembered the matter inasmuch as the matter was not fresh in his mind and that even the written arguments which were filed on 18.10.2007, has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order is a four page order and all pleas raised by the petitioner have not been dealt with in the impugned order. He therefore urged that the matter be remanded to the Revisional Authority to decide the matter afresh after hearing the Counsel for the parties.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in case of ANIL RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR, 318 reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318, wherein the Honourable Apex Court has observed thus - " The inordinate, unexplained and negligent delay in pronouncing the judgment is alleged to have actually negatived the right of appeal conferred upon the convicts under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that such a delay is not only against the provisions of law but in fact infrin