IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5189 OF 2008 Mr.Ameet Khambay ...Petitioner Versus Mr.Pravin Prabhakar Pandhirkar & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for Petitioner. Mr.Sham Gumte for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JULY 18, 2008. JULY 18, 2008. JULY 18, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr.Gumte waives notice for Respondent No.1. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. : 2 : 4. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division dated 9th June 2008 in Appeal No.DESK/MECA/REV/405/07. For the nature of order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to extensively deal with all the contentions raised before this Court at the instance of the Petitioner. Suffice it to observe that the Revisional Authority has disposed of the Revision by a cryptic order. The only reason which weighed with the Revisional Authority to dismiss the Revision Application can be discerned from the one paragraph reasons at page 217 which read thus: "I have gone through the arguments of both the sides and also perused the papers of lower court. It is seen that Competent Authority after giving full opportunity to both the sides, after verifying the evidence produced before him and after examining the witness, passed impugned order. He has framed the issues, discussed all the issues at length and came to the conclusion that Respondent is in the possession of the Suit Premises in the capacity of licensee and not by part performance of sale agreement. He has rightly held that if present applicant has got any right on the basis of agreement to sale dated 10/12/2004 then he may very well approach the proper forum and get his rights decided. This observation of : 3 : Competent Authority is correct and needs no interference." 5. I am in agreement with the grievance of the Petitioner that these reasons do not deal with the argument canvassed by the Petitioner about the efficacy of the documents which have been taken into account by the lower Authority. The Petitioner is justified in relying on the decision of our High Court in the case of Anjali Jayant Anjali Jayant Anjali Jayant Gandhi vs. Ramesh Gopal Vagholikar reported in Gandhi vs. Ramesh Gopal Vagholikar reported in Gandhi vs. Ramesh Gopal Vagholikar reported in 2005 (1) Mh.L.J.537, 2005 (1) Mh.L.J.537, 2005 (1) Mh.L.J.537, which takes the view that so long as the said documents are registered documents, the same cannot be looked into. For, unregistered documents are not admissible documents in law. Once the said documents are to be ignored, then the question to be considered by the Revisional Authority was: whether there was other relevant material to record a finding of fact about the relationship between the parties that of licensor and licensee. The Revisional Authority has not adverted to this aspect at all. The Revisional Authority has also not adverted to the relevant circumstances or material, which in its : 4 : view would be sufficient to form opinion about the relationship of licensor and licensee between the parties; and whether the lower Authority has arrived at the finding of fact in that behalf which can be supported by such material. 6. As aforesaid, the order which is impugned before this Court is unintelligible in relation to the relevant issues that ought to have been addressed by the Authority in the first place and the correctness of which view ought to be tested by the Revisional Authority. All these aspects will have to be considered by the Revisional Authority on its own merits and appropriate decision recorded after giving fair opportunity to both sides. The Revisional Authority will have to consider the Revision Application afresh on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observation made in the impugned order or for that matter, the present order. 7. Accordingly, this Petition succeeds. The impugned Judgment and Order is set-aside. Instead, Revision/Appeal is restored to the file to its : 5 : original number to be heard and decided afresh by the Revisional Authority on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions in that behalf are left open. 8. The parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 4th August 2008 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of the Revisional Authority on which date, the Revisional Authority will proceed to decide the matter finally or fix such other date as may be convenient to it while ensuring that the Revision Application is finally disposed of not later than 30th September 2008. 9. It will be open to the Revisional Authority to pass appropriate orders on the Application made by the Respondent/licensor requiring the Petitioner/licensee to pay arrears of rent before entertaining the Revision Application. All questions in that behalf are also left open. 10. Petition disposed of on the above terms. : 6 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.