Disposed¶6

Mr. Uttam S/O Ravla Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jun 2025IA/13791/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999; Section 24 Competent Authority order challenged in writ petition; Section 44 statutory revisional remedy before State Government; alternative remedy; writ petition disposed with liberty to file revision; three-week window for entertainment of Revision Application; Interim Application No. 13791 of 2024 disposed; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; N. J. Jamadar, J.; decided 26 June 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Revisional Authority; if the Petitioner approaches within three weeks from the date of uploading of the order, the Revisional Authority may entertain the Revision Application. Interim Application No. 13791 of 2024 also stands disposed. ¶6

Mr. Uttam S/O Ravla Sonawane vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

20-WP-15972-2022.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 15972 OF 2022

Uttam Ravla Sonawane

..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13791 OF 2024

¶12

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 15972 OF 2022

¶14

Mr. Anand Mishra, i/b Ashok M. Saraogi, for the Petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj D. Patil, i/b Neha R Parte, for the Respondents. Adv Ravleen Sabharwal, with Prakhar Tandon, Aarushi Yadav and Mandar B Waidande, for Respondent No.3-SRA.

¶15

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 26^th JUNE 2025

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶18

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.06.30 10:17:20 +0530

¶19

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 seeks leave to

¶21

tender an Affidavit in Reply to the Interim Application.

¶22

Leave granted. Affidavit in Reply taken on record.

¶23

The challenge in this Petition is to an order passed by the

¶24

Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“the Act of 1999”).

¶25

1/2

¶26

20-WP-15972-2022.DOC

¶27

There is a statutory remedy of preferring a Revision against the order passed by the Competent Authority before the State Government or any Officer appointed by the State Government under Section 44 of the Act of 1999.

¶28

In this view of the matter, the Court does not consider it appropriate to entertain this Petition.

¶29

The Petition, therefore, stands disposed with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Revisional Authority.

¶30

In the event, the Petitioner approaches the Revisional Authority, within a period of three weeks from the date of uploading of this order, the Authority may entertain the Revision Application.

¶31

In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Interim Application No. 13791 of 2024 also stands disposed.

¶32

All concerned will act on production of an authenticated copy of this order.

¶33

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶34

2/2

Mr. Uttam S/O Ravla Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Uttam S/O Ravla Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harish R. Kotian and Anr. vs Asmita Mogra Chs Ltd. and Ors.

Vijayalaxmi Praful Vagal vs Bhushan Ajit Chachad and Ors.

Jambu Kumar Seth vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivranjan Towers Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit vs Bhujbal Constructions and Ors.

Abegail Vanlalliani Pachuau vs Digambar M Meshram and Ors.

Pandurang Vibhoba Jadhav and Ors. vs the Sub Divisional Officer, Panhala Sub Division and Ors.