Can delay be condoned in Section 44 revisions

The Bombay High Court, per Justice Rajesh S. Patil, has referred an important question of law to a Larger Bench: whether the revisional authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has power to condone delay when a revision is filed beyond 90 days.

The petition arose from eviction proceedings filed in 2008 by a retired Army officer, Lt. Col. (Retd.) Jaigopal Nagarajan, under Section 23(A) of the Act in respect of a flat at Kondhwa, Pune. The Competent Authority dismissed the application on 27 August 2009, holding that the petitioner had not obtained the necessary certificate under Section 23(A)(a) and had not proved that he was a landlord within the meaning of Section 23. The authority, however, answered the bona fide need issue in the petitioner’s favour.

The petitioner then filed a revision under Section 44 before the Additional Commissioner, Pune. There was a delay of 12 days, so a delay condonation application was filed. By order dated 17 June 2010, the Additional Commissioner rejected that application on the ground that Section 44 did not confer power to condone delay.

Before the High Court, the narrow controversy was crystallised as the revisional authority’s power to condone delay under Section 44. The Court examined the legislative history of rent control legislation in Maharashtra, including the transition from the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 to the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It also considered the special provisions and objects behind the rent law framework for defence services personnel, who often face difficulty regaining possession of their premises after retirement or transfer.

The Court noted that the issue had wider significance and that earlier authorities cited before it did not consider all relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. In view of the importance of the question, the Court held that it should be decided by an appropriate Larger Bench.

The Registry has been directed to place the papers before the Chief Justice for consideration of the formulated question.

Practical takeaway: the power of the revisional authority under Section 44 to condone delay remains open and awaits determination by a Larger Bench.