ROHIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioners/landlords of the premises, have sought quashing of proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad being S.C.C. No. 9242/2007, initiated by the respondent No. 2 for failure to get lease deed agreement registered.

(2.) The respondent No. 2 has taken godown from the petitioners on 1.6.2001 on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. As per Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" for short), a duty is cast on the landlord to get the tenancy document duly registered which is mandatory. According to respondent, in spite of his request and demand to the petitioners to get executed and registered the agreement of tenancy, the petitioners avoided the tenancy and hence, committed an offence under Section 55 of the said Act. The petitioners question validity, legality of the said process.

(3.) Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the complaint petition is not maintainable. As per an oral agreement dated 1.6.2001, led the premises to be let out to the respondent No. 2. In order to frustrate proceedings of eviction initiated by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has filed afore-referred complaint under Section 55. Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code specifically deals with bar on taking cognizance after lapse of limitation. As the oral agreement was of June 2001, the complaint is filed in the year 2007 and on this ground alone, the complaint petition needs quashing.