1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P. NO. 4772/2006 (Padmanabh Buty and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr.A.C.Dharmadhikari, Adv. for petitioners Mrs.Bharti Dangre, Addl.G.P. for Repondents CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ DATED : 26 th JUNE, 2008. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court challenging the communications dated 30.5.2006 and 20.7.2006 issued by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 respectively to the extent of abolishing the post of Rent Controller and transferring the post of Rent Controller as a post of Special Land Acquisition Officer. A direction is sought by the petitioners to suitably modify the order mentioned to the extent of continuance of the post so as to allow the Rent Controller to exercise the jurisdiction vested in terms of the Rent Control Order, 1949, as the proceedings that were initiated under the said Rent Control Order are saved by the provisions of Section 58 of the Rent Control Act, 1999. 3. This court on 6th May, 2008 had asked the respondents to file an affidavit stating as to whether the post of Rent 2 Controller can be restored and the pending cases in the said office can be handled by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who discharges the functions of the Rent Controller. This court had asked the respondents to file an affidavit stating therein to regulate the time or days and to conduct the Rent Control matters during that period and the said matters will not be given secondary preference. 4. In pursuance to this order, respondent nos. 1 to 4 have filed an affidavit dated 11.6.2008 pointing out that there are 1000 cases pending under the Rent Control Order and 11 cases under the new Act. The affidavit states that these cases would be distributed amongst 10 Deputy Collectors and they would be directed to take necessary steps to dispose of the pending cases under the old Rent Control Order and the new 11 cases would be disposed of by the Competent Authority under the New Rent Control Act. 5. Along with this affidavit, the respondents have annexed an order that was issued by Respondent No. 1 – Collector, Nagpur, by which he has appointed 10 Deputy Collectors to dispose of 1000 cases pending under the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, by utilizing powers under Section 3 thereof. The respondents have placed on record communications addressed to 10 Officers distributing the cases to be decided by them under the Rent Control Order, 1949. The respondents have also issued a 3 communication under the signature of the Resident Deputy Collector to the effect that the Rent Control cases would be fixed for hearing on every Monday and Friday. 6. We had sought for certain clarification as it was not mentioned in the order dated 26th May, 2008 issued by the Collector, Nagpur, that these Deputy Collectors so appointed are designated as Rent Controllers. 7. The petitioner submits that this ambiguity in the order dated 26th May, 2008, may give rise to further litigation as the jurisdiction and authority of these officers can be questioned. 8. In our opinion, however, the stand taken by the respondents that these ten officers appointed by order dated 26th May, 2008, will be deemed to be appointed as Rent Controllers under the provisions of the Rent Control Order, 1949, is appropriate. Besides, the orders that would be passed by these officers in the pending proceedings under the Rent Control Order, 1949, and in such matters that may be remanded back to them by the Appellate Authorities or by the Courts and will be deemed to be passed by the Rent Controller under the provisions of C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. 9. There is one more apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioners that the order dated 26th May, 2008, issued by the Collector, Nagpur, notifies the Rent Controller by names instead 4 of designation. There is possibility of confusion arising as and when any of these notified persons were to be transferred or promoted. Even this apprehension can be redressed on the basis of assurance given by Respondent – State Government that as and when such occasion arises, contemporaneous order will be issued to notify the name of the person and/or his designation who would take over the proceeding left incomplete by the transferred or promoted officer as the case may be. As both the steps of transfer & promotion and that of notifying the new incumbent replacing the former officer will be simultaneous, the question of any confusion arising on account of that eventuality does not arise. We hope and trust that the Government shall ensure that office of the Rent Controller is not kept vacant for unreasonably long time, which eventuality affects the proceedings pending in that forum. 9. With these observations, we dispose of the writ petition, with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit