Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 722 (BOM)

Latika Sharad Joshi v. Additional Commissioner

2011-06-27

R.M.SAVANT

body2011
JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 30/05/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, by which order the revision application filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. 3. The principal ground of challenge in the above petition is that the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the said revision application, in the absence of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that since the matter on 20th May, 2011 was adjourned to 10/06/2011, the petitioners were under an impression that the said revision application would be taken up for hearing on the said date. However, the Additional Commissioner respondent No.3 herein preponed the matter from 10/06/2011 to 27/05/2011, considering the directions passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1977 /2011 by order dated 30th April, 2011, by which order, the Additional Commissioner was directed to hear and decide the said revision application by 30th May, 2011. It is the case of the petitioners that the notice of preponement was not served upon them, but was purportedly served on some Chowkidar whose endorsement is found on the said notice. It is the case of the petitioners that they have no such Chowkidar at the residential premises wherein they are staying. 4. It is required to be noted that at an interlocutory stage of the said revision application, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1977/2011 wherein the direction for the parties to appear on 9th May, 2011 was issued and a further direction was issued that the Additional Commissioner should decide the said revision application by 30th May, 2011. 5. The petitioners are the tenants of the premises in question of which the respondent No.3 is the landlord. The respondent No.3 has filed the eviction proceedings against the petitioners before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In the said proceedings the respondent No.3 landlord had moved an application for leading secondary evidence, which was allowed by the competent authority, against which the revision application in question has been filed by the petitioners. 6. The respondent No.3 has filed the eviction proceedings against the petitioners before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In the said proceedings the respondent No.3 landlord had moved an application for leading secondary evidence, which was allowed by the competent authority, against which the revision application in question has been filed by the petitioners. 6. It was sought to be contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 landlord that the petitioners were very well aware of the time limit fixed by this Court by order dated 30/05/2011 and, therefore, they ought to have pointed out to the authority that 10/06/2011 would be outside the said time limit that was fixed by this Court. Having not done so, the petitioners cannot have a grievance about the preponement of the date of the hearing. 7. There can be no argument in so far as the adherence to the time limit fixed by this Court is concerned and the parties could not have taken exception to the preponement of the matter so as to facilitate its decision within the time limit which is fixed by this Court. However, the question which begs an answer is as to whether the petitioners were noticed about the change in the dates. As indicated above, the endorsement on the said notice, which was directed to be served by the Tahsildar is purportedly that of a Chowkidar of the premises wherein the petitioners are residing. The petitioners as mentioned herein above have denied that they have any Chowkidar in the said premises. 8. That apart in my view, since the counsel was appearing for the petitioners in the matter, it would have been appropriate to serve the counsel rather than serve a person on the premises, who may have no connection with the petitioners. The impugned order is therefore vitiated on account of the fact that the petitioners did not have opportunity to pursue the said revision application. In that view of the matter, the impugned order would have to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the matter is relegated back to the Additional Commissioner for a de novo consideration of the revision application. The petitioners to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 11th July, 2011 at 3.00 p.m. The Additional Commissioner thereafter to decide the revision application within two weeks from 11th July, 2011. 9. The petitioners to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 11th July, 2011 at 3.00 p.m. The Additional Commissioner thereafter to decide the revision application within two weeks from 11th July, 2011. 9. The parties to bring to the notice of the Authority the instant order. 10. Learned counsel Shri Bhishikar appearing for respondent No.3 states that till such time as the revision application is not decided, the respondent No.3 would not pursue the application before the Competent Authority for eviction of the petitioners. 11. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.