Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 1068
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Laxman Bhaguji Kawade
Versus
Dnyaneshwar Krishnaji Takalkar & Others
Writ Petition No.8323 of 2012
Decided on : 17-06-2013
For the Petitioner:A.M. Joshi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Prafulla B. Shah, Advocate.
The proceedings before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are summary in nature and do not equate to civil court suits. Objections raised to the execution of possession warrants must be in accordance with the Act's provisions.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Challenge to Competent Authority's Order - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) - Section 24
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order granting possession to the respondent under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent claimed ownership of the property and filed objections to the execution of the possession warrant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings before the competent authority were summary in nature and empowered the landlord to recover possession of licensed premises. The court quashed the objections filed by the respondent and set aside the orders passed by the competent authority.
Issues: Interpretation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and the legality of objections raised by the respondent to the execution of the possession warrant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings before the competent authority were summary in nature and did not equate to a civil court suit. The objections raised by the respondent were found to lack bonafides and were quashed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the objections filed by the respondent, and set aside the orders passed by the competent authority. The competent authority was directed not to dispossess the respondent for a period of four weeks to enable the respondent to proceed with pending appeals.
1. Rule. Respondent No.1 is the contesting Respondent. He and others are duly served. Mr.Shah is appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority, Pune dated 19.07.2011 under which the only prayer clause (c) of the Application (Exhibit-1 in Misc. Application No.5/2011) made by the Respondent No.1 (Dnyaneshwar Takalkar) has been granted. That was an application made by him in the form of obstruction/objection to the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority dated 29.09.2007 in Application No.25/2007.
3. A brief reference is required to be made to the facts so as to appreciate the arguments particularly of Mr.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
4. There is a immovable property which is a house property. That was initially owned by the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner claims to have purchased the said property from the Respondent No.2 under a registered sale deed executed on 24.11.2003. The Respondent No.2 though, as claimed by the Petitioner, transferred his right, title and interest in the property and made the Petitioner absolute owner thereof, but requested the Petitioner to allow him to occupy the premises as Licencee for a period of three years. The Petitioner accepted that request and the licence agreement came to be executed between the parties determining the licence fees and period. Since there was default committed by the Respondent No.2 in payment of the licence fees and despite the default being brought to the notice of the Respondent No.2 and asked to vacate the premises, she did not vacate the premises after a period of three years. Therefore, the Petitioner filed the Miscellaneous Application No.25/2007 invoking Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short “MRC Act”) against the Respondent No.2 for seeking her eviction. The said application was allowed on 29.09.2007 directing eviction of the Respondent No.2 from the subject premises.
5. The Respondent No.2 filed the Special Civil Suit No.860/2007 praying for declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the Petitioner be declared as null and void and prayed for injunction restraining the Petitioner from disturbing her possession. The Petitioner appeared in the suit and filed the Written Statement. That suit is still pending.
6. In the meanwhile, the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 29.09.2007 was challenged by the Respondent No.2 in Revision Application being Revision Application No.350/2007. That application was also rejected by the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune by his order dated 08.09.2009. It is at this stage that the application was made before the competent authority by the Petitioner for enforcement of his order dated 29.09.2007 being Execution Application No.9/2008. On that application, a warrant for possession was issued, but the eviction order was not enforced on account of pendency of the Revision Application. On dismissal of the Revision Application, the Respondent No.2 challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.10222/2009. However, she withdrew the said Writ Petition on 08.02.2010. Another Writ Petition was filed being Writ Petition No.16270/2010, which also was rejected by this Court on 28.07.2010.
7. In the meanwhile, the present Respondent No.1, claiming to be third party, filed an application for objection (Exhibit-35) in the execution proceedings before the competent authority mentioning that he has purchased the subject property from the Respondent No.2 on 08.03.2004. He, therefore, claimed ownership of the premises. An affidavit was filed by the Respondent No.2 affirming the transaction with the Respondent No.1.
8. The Respondent No.1 filed one more application (Exhibit-53) on 21.12.2010 praying for setting aside the order dated 29.09.2007 passed in Misc. Application No.25/2007. The Petitio
