1. Heard Shri C.R.Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.G.Nagode, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. This is a petition by the original defendant raising exception to the order dated 23.09.2010, passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur, below Exhibit-23 in Regular Civil Suit No.447/2009.

3. Petitioner herein, (referred to as ‘the defendant’), tendered an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the Court to reject the plaint. The application tendered by the petitioner came to be rejected. Hence, this Civil Revision Application.

4. Plaintiff instituted suit claiming recovery of an amount of Rs.39,000/- towards arrears of rent against the defendant. It is the contention of plaintiff that defendant is a tenant in respect of residential premises which were let out to him. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.1500/- per month. Defendant occupied the premises since December 2006, however, it is contended that since May-2007, for a period of about 26 months, defendant has failed to pay the rent. As such, plaintiff is claiming recovery of amount towards arrears of rent.

5. The suit claim was opposed by the defendant by presenting his written statement. Defendant has denied oral agreement of tenancy. Defendant has also controverted plaintiff’s status as owner of the suit premises. Defendant controverted relationship of landlord and tenant and he further claims that the property exclusively belongs to his sister, which has been bequeathed in his favour by his sister after demise of her daughter Apurva. Defendant, as such, requests for dismissal of the suit.

6. In the pending suit, defendant presented an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting for rejection of the plaint. It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff, in the suit, pleaded oral agreement of rent in respect of the suit premises. In view of provisions of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, an agreement in respect of payment of rent is compulsorily required to be in writing and be registered and the consequence of failure to record the agreement in writing and getting the same registered would lead to penal consequences. It is, thus, contended that the very foundation of the claim raised by the plaintiff is an illegal agreement, which cannot be the basis for raising claim for recovery of rent and as such, plaint is required to be rejected.

7. Plaintiff opposed the application contending that the consequences for failure to register the agreement of rent are as laid down in the Section itself and as such, plaint presented by the plaintiff claiming recovery of rent cannot be rejected.

8. Rule 11(d) of Order VII provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, mandates that the tenancy agreement for leave and licence or letting of any premises, entered into between the landlord and the tenant or the licensee, as the case may be, after the commencement of this Act, shall be in writing and shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. The responsibility of securing registration of the agreement is on the shoulders of the landlord and in the absence of written registered agreement, the contention of the tenant about the terms and conditions, subject to which premises have been given to him by the landlord on leave and licence or have been let to him, shall prevail, unless proved otherwise. Sub-section(3) of Section 55 provides that in the event of contravention of the provisions of this Section by any landlord, he shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine not exceeding rupees five thousand or with both.

Thus, on perusal of the Sectio