Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE, MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
M/s. Labhshetwar & Sakkarwar Constructions & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondents
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1150 OF 2015
Decided On : 19-12-2017
Section 55 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act - [55] - The court discussed the constitutional validity of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and its consistency with the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Easement Act, 1882. The court found that the provision of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Indian Easement Act and Indian Registration Act, and operates in different fields. The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was rejected.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, on the grounds of legislative competence and violation of fundamental rights. The court also considered the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate directing issuance of process under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was without specific grievances or better particulars, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate how the provision is inconsistent with the Indian Registration Act and the Indian Easement Act. The court also quashed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate due to lack of reasons and the pendency of a civil dispute between the parties.
Issues: The issues involved the constitutional validity of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the reasons for the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, and the pendency of a civil dispute between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was vague and general in nature, without specific grievances or better particulars. The court also emphasized the need for the Magistrate to assign reasons for the order and considered the pendency of a civil dispute between the parties.
Final Decision: The court partly made the rule absolute, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, and disposed of the Writ Petition accordingly.
S.S. SHINDE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This Petition is filed with following prayers:
"(C) By a suitable writ, order or direction the Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 be struck down on the ground that, the same is beyond legislative competence of State Legislature.
(D) By a suitable writ, order or direction Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 be struck down on the ground that, the same is violative of fundamental right of the Petitioners guaranteed by Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,
(E) By a suitable writ, order or direction the order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the learned XIIIth Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad and entire proceedings in SCC No.3181 of 2015 be quashed."
3. The background facts for filing the present Petition as disclosed in the memo of the Petition, in brief, are as under:
(A). It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and Petitioner Nos.2 to 7 are the partners of said firm. The hotel premises constructed on Plot No.4, CTS No.18349/1/4, situated at Vedant Nagar, Aurangabad is the subject matter of various proceedings between the parties (for short "the property"). Said premises is owned by the Petitioners. Petitioner No.1 firm executed a registered leave and license document in favour of Respondent No.2 on 21st April, 2004 and the same was registered at Sr. No.1591 of 2004 with SubRegistrar1, Aurangabad. Said Leave and license Agreement was to operate for a period of 33 months and the agreement clearly spells out the terms and conditions agreed upon by and between the parties.
(B) It is the further case of the Petitioners that according to allegations made in complaint on 19th January, 2007 another agreement was executed for a period of 27 months. Initially, proceeding under Section 9 of Arbitration Act bearing MARJI No.133 of 2009 were filed by Respondent No.2 thereby praying for the relief of injunction. In the said proceedings, by order dated 27th April, 2009 learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad directed the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, which was deposited by the Petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 19th June, 2009, Respondent No.2 filed Arbitration Appeal No.3 of 2009 before this Court, which was later on withdrawn.
(C) It is the case of the Petitioners that on 26th November, 2009, Respondent No.2 filed Regular Civil Suit No.1001 of 2009 praying therein for grant of relief of injunction. Along with the said suit, application Exhibit 5 was filed for temporary injunction, which came to be allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.26 of 2010 before the District Court, which came to be rejected by order dated 6th April, 2010. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by Courts below, Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.3668 of 2010 before this Court. In the said Petition, order dated 3rd May, 2010 was passed by consent of parties.
(D) It is the further case of the Petitioners that ultimately Regular Civil Suit No.1001 of 2009 filed by Respondent No.2 was heard and dismissed by order dated 20th February, 2013 by the Civil Court, Aurangabad. Respondent No.2 preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.66 of 2013 before the District Court, Aurangabad, along with an application below Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction. The said application for temporary injunction came to be allowed. Against the said order dated 16th March, 2013 the Petitioners filed Appeal from Order No.36 of 2013 before this Court, which came to be disposed of. The Petitioners were granted specific liberty to file an application for escalation in the amount of compensation paid to the Petitioners.
(E) It is the case of the Petitioners that in terms of liberty granted to the Petitioners, application Exhibit 63 was filed, praying therein for escalation in amount of compensati
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
