Can Revisional Authority Under Maharashtra Rent Act Condone Delay Beyond 90 Days? Bombay High Court Refers To Larger Bench

The Bombay High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the question whether the Revisional Authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has the power to condone delay in a revision application filed by a landlord beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The Court observed that the issue assumes significance particularly in cases involving special categories of landlords, such as members of the armed forces, for whose benefit the special summary procedure under the Act was enacted.

Justice Rajesh S. Patil was hearing a writ petition filed by a retired Army officer challenging an order of the Additional Commissioner, Pune, refusing to condone a delay of 12 days in filing a revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The petitioner had instituted eviction proceedings under Section 23A of the Act before the Competent Authority in respect of a flat in Pune. The Competent Authority dismissed the eviction application. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the eviction proceedings, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 44. Since the revision was filed with a delay of 12 days, an application for condonation of the delay was also preferred. The Additional Commissioner rejected the application, holding that Section 44 did not confer any power to condone delay. The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court.

The Court examined the scheme of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and traced the legislative history of the special provisions applicable to members of the armed forces. It noted that provisions corresponding to Section 23 were introduced to address the difficulties faced by defence personnel in recovering possession of premises let out during the course of their service. The Court observed that the object of the legislation was to provide a special and beneficial remedy to such landlords.

The Court further examined Section 44, which bars appeals against orders of the Competent Authority but permits revision by the State Government or an authorized officer. It noted that while the second proviso to Section 44(2) stipulates that a revision by an aggrieved person must be preferred within 90 days, the provision does not expressly deal with condonation of delay. The Court also noted that Section 34 of the Act, governing appeals, expressly makes Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable, whereas no such provision exists in Section 44.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Property Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Rohinten Daddy Mazda and earlier decisions, the Court noted that the Limitation Act generally does not apply to quasi-judicial authorities unless the statute specifically confers such power. However, the Court observed that the decisions did not specifically address the position of landlords invoking the special remedy under Chapter VIII of the Act.

“… the judgment of Naranji Trust, Nagpur, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash Jain (supra), has interpreted Section 44 in that particular manner. In my view, such an interpretation for a harmonious consideration of the scheme of Chapter VIII, which is actually introduced for the purpose of a landlord's benefit, cannot be read into…,” the Court observed.

Observing that the issue required consideration by a Larger bench, the Court formulated the following question for consideration by a Larger Bench: “Whether the revisional authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has the power to condone a delay if the revision is filed by a landlord beyond a period of 90 days?”

The Court accordingly directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for the constitution of an appropriate Larger Bench.

Case Title: Lt. Col. Retd. Jaigopal Nagarajan v. Mrs. Vasudev Mariwala [Writ Petition No. 502 of 2011]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 275

Click Here To Read/Download Order