1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 835 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri L.R. Castelino for the Petitioner. Shri J.G. Reddy for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9th February, 2010. P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent pointed out that when the Petition was heard for admission yesterday, his name was not shown on the cause list and therefore, he could not appear. 3. The rule has already been issued on 8th February, 2010. Apart from the contentions raised by the Petitioner on merits, it was noted by this Court that the Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner has been 2 disposed of by the learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, in a most cryptic manner without considering the evidence and other material on record. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent suggested that instead of keeping the Petition pending in this Court, the Revision Applicantion can be remanded to the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, for a fresh hearing. The said request deserves to be accepted. 4. It must be noted here that the law provides for no appeal from order of eviction passed under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. However, the power of revision is conferred by Section 44(2) of the said Act. It is true that there is a distinction between the appellate power and the power of revision. When a Revisional Authority considers a challenge to an order of eviction from residential premises which is an order of drastic nature, surely the orders passed in the Revisions must indicate application of mind by the Authority hearing the Revision Applications. In the present case, the impugned order shows complete non application of mind. 3 6. Hence, I pass following order. (a) The impugned order dated 6th January, 2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside. (b) The Revision Application bearing No.Appeal/Desk/MRCA/REV/2/10 is restored to file. (c) The Learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, will hear and decide the Revision Application afresh in the light of the observations made in this order. (d) Till the disposal of the Revision Application, the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 8th February, 2010 will continue to operate. (e) Hearing of the Revision Application is expedited. The Revision Application shall 4 be decided within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Authority. (f) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (g) The rule is made partly absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J) ash/