1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3808 OF 2008 Mr.Sahebrao Punjaji Jadhav .. Petitioner versus Smt.Zarin Michel Davis .. Respondent Mr.M.S.Karnik for the petitioner. Ms.Pranjali Bhandari for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 14th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The respondent filed an application under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The application was filed on the ground that the petitioner was inducted in the suit premises on the basis of a Leave and Licence Agreement and that he has not vacated the suit premises on expiry of licence. The application made by the respondent was disposed of by the Competent Authority by order dated 1st November 2002. The Competent Authority referred to the application made by the petitioner on the very day which was at Exhibit 10. By the said application, the petitioner undertook to vacate and hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent. A prayer was made in the application that Competent Authority be 2 pleased to grant period of twelve months from the date to vacate the suit premises. The respondent filed a reply to the said application of the petitioner by stating that respondent had no objection to extend the licence period for one year i.e up to 31st October 2003. The application under section 24 of the said Act was disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties in terms of the application made by the petitioner and the reply filed thereto by the respondent. Against the said order dated 1st November 2002, on 2nd December 2005, the petitioner preferred a revision application under section 44 of the said Act. By the impugned order the said revision application stands dismissed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a statutory revision application has been dismissed by the authority without considering the merits of the revision application. He invited my attention to various grounds in the revision application. He pointed out that a specific contention was raised that someone impersonated the petitioner and a false and fabricated application at Exhibit 10 has been presented. He submitted that the grounds in the revision application and in particular the said ground has not been considered on merits. He submitted that the revision application was filed after he received a notice of execution application in as much as he was not aware of the said application at Exhibit 10. 4. I have considered the submissions. The order passed by the Competent Authority on application at Exhibit 10 under section 24 of the said Act reads thus: “Heard both the sides. Both the parties reached to compromise as per 3 terms and conditions stated and mentioned in opponent’s application (Exhibit 10). Hence, the said matter is disposed of in terms of Exhibit 10.” 5. The said order shows that the petitioner was heard by the Competent Authority. The jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority dealing with a revision application under section 44 of the said Act is very limited. After perusal of the record, the Revisional Authority came to the conclusion that there was no material placed on record to show that the petitioner has not signed the application at Exhibit 10. The revision application was belatedly filed after expiry of three years from the date of order of Competent Authority. The factual grounds pleaded in the revision application could not have been considered by the Revisional Authority, considering the limited scope of revision application. It was for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings and to prove the allegations made by him. Going by the record of the Competent Authority, the Revisional Authority found that the petitioner was heard by the Competent Authority. 6. In the circumstances, this is not a case where interference can be made with the order passed in revision under section 44 of the said Act considering the limited scope of revision application. 7. Writ petition is accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)