Quashed

Mr. Nripesh Ranajn Chakravarty v. Mr. Chetan Pravinakant Shukla and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2013WP/6853/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order by the Additional Commissioner condoning delay to file a revision under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The Court quashed the unreasoned order and restored the matter for a reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Misc Application No.61 restored to Commissioner for reasoned decision; all merits open.

Mr. Nripesh Ranajn Chakravarty Vs Mr. Chetan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-6853-13.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6853 of 2013

¶3

Nripersh Ranjan Chkravarty versus Chetan Pravinkant Shukla & Ors.

¶4

: Petitioner

¶5

: Respondents

¶6

Mr. N. V. Bandivadekar for the Petitioner Mrs Swati Morgi i/b Mr. V. G. Mehta for the Respondent No.1 Mr. S. D. Rayrikar AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3

¶7

CORAM:- R. G. KETKAR, J DATED :- 4^th SEPTEMBER, 2013.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1 Heard Mr. Bandivadekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs.

¶10

Morgi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶11

2 Rule. The Learned Counsel for the respective Respondents waive service. At the request and by consent of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶12

3 By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 8-5-2013 passed

¶13

by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai (for short “commissioner”) in revision application preferred by the Respondent No.1

mmj

1/4

wp-6853-13.sxw

under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (in short the “Act”). By that order Commissioner condoned the delay in filing the revision application.

¶18

4 In support of this Petition Mr. Bandiwadekar submitted that the Respondents have filed application under Section 24 of the Act against the Petitioner. The said application was rejected by the competent authority on 27-4-2006. Instead of filing the revision application under Section 44 of

¶19

the Act, Respondent No.1 challenged that order by filing Civil Revision Application in this Court on 8-8-2006. He submitted that in terms of the second provisio of Section 44 of the Act, no powers of revision at the instance of person aggrieved can be exercised, unless an application is presented within ninety days of the date of order viz in the present case order dated 27-4-2006. Respondent No.1 therefore took out Civil Application No.101 of 2006 for condonation of delay in filing the civil revision application in this Court. The said application was allowed on 278-2011. The civil revision application was disposed of on 12-12-2011 permitting the Respondent No.1 to withdraw the civil revision application with liberty to file revision application under Section 44 of the Act. On the

¶20

same day the Respondent No.1 had applied for certified copy of the order dated 12-12-2011. The certified copy was ready on 18-1-2012. It was

mmj

2/4

wp-6853-13.sxw

collected by the Respondent No.1 on 14-2-2012. Respondent No.1 filed revision application on 10-2-2012. Mr. Bandiwadekar invited my attention to the application made by the Respondent No.1 being Misc application No.61 of 2012 for condonation of delay and the affidavit in reply filed by the Petitioner herein. He submitted that though various contentions were raised by the parties and the same are also reproduced in the impugned order, the commissioner has not dealt with those contentions. In short his submission is that the commissioner has merely recorded the conclusion but has not passed a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by the parties.

¶25

5 Mrs Morgi, supported the impugned order. However, she would not point out any reason given by the commissioner for condonation of delay she also could not point out any finding recorded by the commissioner after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. After perusing the impugned order, I am satisfied that the commissioner has not dealt with various contentions raised by the parties though in the impugned order the commissioner has reproduced the various contentions, It would also be necessary for the commissioner to consider the submission made by the Petitioner as to whether the Limitation Act 1963 applies to the authority constituted under Section 44

mmj

3/4

wp-6853-13.sxw

of the Act.

6 In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Misc Application No.61 of 2012 filed by the Respondent No.1 is restored to file of the Additional Commissioner of Konkan Division, Mumbai. The Additional Commissioner Konkan Division shall decide the application after considering all the contention raised by the parties and shall pass a reasoned order. All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶31

(R. G. KETKAR, J)

¶32

mmj

¶33

4/4

Mr. Nripesh Ranajn Chakravarty v. Mr. Chetan Pravinakant Shukla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Nripesh Ranajn Chakravarty v. Mr. Chetan Pravinakant Shukla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salim Saddiquedin Shaikh and Anr. Vs Gindodebai Jairam Bangaria (Since Deceased) and Anr.

Mrs. Ratanbai Sadharilal Gupta Vs Mr. Annarao Baloba Gaikwad (Since Deceased through His Heirs) and Others

Jude D'Souza of Bombay Vs Mrs. Loretta Rodrigues and Anr.

Shri. Madanlal Shrikisan Karwa and Anr. Vs Shri. Omprakash Agyaram Mundada (Since Decd), through Lrs

Smt. Usha Prabhakar Wavikar and Ors. Vs Shri. Chhogmal Lavji Mehta and Ors.

Padma Udharam Thadani and Others Vs Mazda Theatres Private Ltd. and Another