1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3474 OF 2009 Anita Paras Picha .. Petitioners versus Jyoti Gajanan Kelkar & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.D.H.Mehta a/w Mr.Dhaval Mehta i/by D.M.Legal Associates for the petitioners. Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 2nd September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent made an application before the competent authority by invoking provisions of section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The allegation in the application filed by the 1st respondent is that the petitioner was inducted in the suit premises as licensee under an agreement dated 1st June 2006 and that the licence has expired by efflux of time on 31stMay 2008. On 30th June 2008, on the said application the competent authority passed an order directing the 1st respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- as a penalty on impounding the alleged Leave and Licence Agreement dated 1st June 2006. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision 2 application under section 44 of the said Act. The revision application has been dismissed on merits. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 30th June 2008 is patently illegal in as much as the said order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. He submitted that the competent authority has no jurisdiction to pass such order. He submitted that if at all the agreement is improperly stamped the same will have to be impounded and provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 will have to be followed in that behalf. He submitted that if the agreement is not registered, the said defect cannot be cured. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The order dated 30th June 2008 reads thus: “Order vide Exhibit 7. Applicant is directed to deposit Rs.5000/- as a penalty for impounding the alleged Leave and License agreement dated 1st June 2006, executed between, the parties is on less amount of stamp paper and unregistered. Applicant is suomoto ready and willing to pay the penalty as required by law. Thus application (Exhibit 7) of applicant is allowed and leave and license agreement shall be acted upon and admitted in evidence on payment of penalty of Rs.5000/- as per section 55 of MRCA 1999.” 4. Under sub section 1 of section 55 of the said Act an agreement for leave and licence executed after commencement of the said Act is required to be in writing and is made compulsorily registrable. Under sub section 3 of 3 section 55, the contravention of the provision of sub section 1 of section 55 has been made an offence. Sub section 2 provides for consequences of absence of registered agreement. 5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned competent authority has observed that Leave and Licence Agreement shall be acted upon and admitted in evidence on payment of penalty of Rs.5,000/-. If Leave and Licence Agreement is not registered, the consequences thereof are already provided in sub section 2 of section 55 of the said Act and the said consequences will follow. There is no power vesting in the competent authority to cure the defect of non registration. If the document is not adequately stamped, unless compliance is made with the requirements of the Bombay Stamp Act by payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty, as the case may, the document cannot be admitted in evidence. Notwithstanding the order dated 30th June 2008, these aspects will have to be considered by the competent authority while deciding the application finally. It will be open for the petitioner to contend before the competent authority that the document is not adequately stamped and therefore the same cannot be admitted in evidence unless compliance is made with the requirements of the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act. As the defect of non registration cannot be cured, it will be open for the petitioner to contend that consequences of non registration will follow in accordance with section 55(2) of the said Act. 4 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a grievance about the approach of the revisional authority. It must be noted that Chapter VIII of the said Act of 1999 contemplates summary disposal of applications under section 24 of the said Act of 1999. Therefore, the revisional authority was justified in not entertaining a revision application against an interlocutory order passed during the pendency of application under section 24. The reason is that all such interlocutory orders can be challenged in revision application which may be filed by the petitioner against the final order passed on application under section 24 if the same be adverse to the petitioner. 7. Subject to what is observed above and by keeping contentions of the petitioners open, the petition is not entertained and the same is disposed of. 8. It is made clear that even the contentions of the 1st respondent on the admissibility of the document of leave and licence are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)