RAJ PRASANNA KONDUR Vs. ARIF TAHER KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondents. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, on 21st March, 2004 rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12th November, 2003 passed by the competent authority at Mumbai rejecting the Application No. 19 of 2003 which was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises.

(3.) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit premises situated at Park View, 129 Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai. The suit premises were permitted to be occupied and used by the petitioner for residential purposes since 1st April, 2001 and the agreement in that regard was executed by the parties on 3rd April, 2001. The said agreement was for a period of 11 months with an option to the petitioner to extend the said agreement for three further periods of 11 months each, subject to the license fee being increased by the petitioner after the second period of 11 months, and further that the petitioner as well as the respondents/owners were to have the right to terminate the agreement by giving a three months' notice to each other. The said agreement was lodged for registration by the respondents on 31st December, 2002. A notice dated 13th January, 2003 came to be served upon the petitioner by the respondents asking him to vacate the premises on 1st February, 2003 or within three months of the notice as the respondents did not wish to renew the agreement any further. Since the petitioner did not vacate the premises, the respondents filed an application before the competent authority under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, hereinafter called as "the said Act", for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises and the summons came to be issued to the petitioner in respect of the said proceedings in accordance with the provisions of section 43 of the said Act as well as by the registered post. However, the summons sent by the registered post was not collected by the petitioner though intimation in that regard by the postman was stated to have been given at the suit premises. The copy of the summon, however, was served on the servant of the petitioner on 5th may, 2003. As the petitioner failed to appear and to seek leave to defend in the matter within 30 days from the date of the service of the summons, the competent authority passed the order dated 15th July, 2003 for eviction of the petitioner from their suit premises. On 13th October, 2003, the petitioner filed an application before the competent authority for setting aside the said exparte order. After hearing the parties, the competent authority dismissed the said application by its order dated 12th November, 2003. The petitioner approached this Court with the Writ Petition No. 8767 of 2003, which was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner to approach the revisional authority under the said Act. The petitioner thereupon filed the revision application before the revisional authority under the said Act which, after hearing the parties, was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21st March, 2004. Hence the present petition.