Writ Petition No. 3970 of 2007 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4. In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent no.3 to dispose of the application filed by him under Section 23(A)(iii) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for 2 the petitioner, states that under Section 43(4)(c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 after leave is granted to contest the application, the competent Authority is required to commence hearing on such application as early as possible and is required to proceed with hearing on day to day basis and is also expected to decide the same within six months from the date of order granting such leave to contest the application. It is submitted that in the instant case, leave was granted on
12.5.2003 and petitioner has also filed affidavit before the competent Authority on
22.6.2006. However, till this date the matter has not been disposed of by the competent Authority and, therefore, the competent Authority may be directed to dispose of the said application on merits within a stipulated period. Shri Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, has not disputed the factual aspect of the matter. However, he submits that Special Land Acquisition Officer is given additional charge of deciding the matters under the Maharashtra Rent 3 Control Act and, therefore, because of pressure of the work, application of the petitioner could not be disposed of finally. Be that as it may, when the provisions of the said Act require competent Authority to dispose of the application within six months after leave is granted, in that case, the competent Authority is expected to complete hearing on such application within six months. In the instant case, in view of above referred facts, application of petitioner is pending for number of years and, therefore, we direct the respondent no.3 to complete hearing on the application by recording evidence, etc. and dispose of the same according to law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of three months from today. With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Aiii of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999; Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 43(4)(c).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 12 Feb 2008. The bench was D D SINHA, VASANTI A NAIK.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.