1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 959 OF 2010 Smt. Seema Sanjay Shirsat & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs Pradeep Devishankar Sharma & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Arun H. Palekar for the Petitioners. Shri R.D. Dave for Respondent No.1. Shri R.P. Behere, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.2. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent. 2. The learned Additional Government Pleader has assisted the Court. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The order has been confirmed by the learned Additional Commissioner in a Revision Application under Section 44 of the said Act. As arguable question was raised, this Court was inclined to issue rule. However, a suggestion is made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the 1st Respondent that the Petition should not be kept pending and by setting aside the order 2 passed in the Revision, the Revision Application be ordered to be heard afresh. 3. One of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners was that before the Competent Authority, their specific case was that the deceased Sanjay Yeshwant Shirsat has not signed the alleged leave and license agreement. There is some discussion on this aspect made by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority has referred to the testimony of the witnesses examined by the parties. My attention is invited to the finding recorded in Clause (2) by the learned Additional Commissioner on this aspect which reads thus:- “2. The grievance of the applicants that the signature of Shri Sanjay Shirsat has been forged is not a matter to be decided by this Court. The applicants can register a complaint with the Police for this but have not done so for past many days. This casts a doubt on their statement regarding the signature.” On the face of it, the finding is perverse. 4. From the first week of January, 2010, this Court has been dealing with the orders passed by the Revisional Authorities under Section 44 of the said Act. In majority of the cases, the orders are very cryptic and they run only in one or two paragraphs. There is no consideration of the submissions made by the parties. There is no consideration of evidence 3 adduced by the parties. The object of enacting Section 24 of the said Act was to provide a speedy remedy for evicting the licensees in respect of the residential premises after the license has come to an end. Considering the scarcity of residential accommodation in metropolitan cities, to encourage the landlords to give premises on leave and license basis, Section 24 of the said Act has been enacted. There is no appeal provided against an order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the said Act. However, the revisional jurisdiction has been conferred on the State Government. The common experience is that the Additional Revenue Commissioners who are given the powers of the State Government are not exercising the revisional jurisdiction in accordance with law. The very object of providing a revision is being frustrated by the approach of the revisional authorities. This is one of those cases as is clear from the Clause (2) of the impugned order quoted above. It is, therefore, necessary for the State Government to seriously look into this aspect and ensure that the powers under Section Section 44 of the said Act are conferred on competent officers so that they will be able to dispose of the revision applications in accordance with law. 5. Hence, I pass following order. (a) The impugned judgment and order dated 14th January, 2010 is quashed and set aside. (b) The Revision Application filed by the Petitioners being 4 Revision Application No.Appeal/Desk/MRCA/ REV/383/2009 is restored to file of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay. (c) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Commissioner on 22nd March, 2010. (d) The learned Additional Commissioner will hear and decide the Revision Application afresh in the light of the observations made in this order. (e) All contentions of the parties on merits on the Revision Application are expressly kept open. (f) The learned Additional Government Pleader is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary of the State Government. (g) The Revision Application shall be decided finally before the end of May, 2010. (A.S.OKA, J) ash