Revisional Authority’s Power to Condone Delay under Section 44, Maharashtra Rent Control Act Referred to Larger Bench

The Petitioner, a retired Army officer and owner of a flat in Pune, filed eviction proceedings in 2008 under Section 23(A) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (MRCA), 1999

The Competent Authority dismissed the application on August 27, 2009, ruling it was not maintainable as the Petitioner failed to produce the necessary certificate under Section 23(A)(a)

The Petitioner filed a Revision Application under Section 44 of the MRCA before the Additional Commissioner, Pune, with a delay of 12 days

On June 17, 2010, the Additional Commissioner rejected the delay condonation application, holding he lacked the power under Section 44 to condone delay

The Petitioner challenged this order via a Writ Petition under Article 227

The Court examined Section 44 of the MRCA, which provides for a 90-day limitation for revisions but lacks an express provision for Section 5 of the Limitation Act, unlike Section 34 of the same Act

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Prakash Jain v. Marie Farnandes, which held that the Competent Authority is not a "Court" and cannot condone delay under the Limitation Act

Property Co. P. Ltd. v. Rohinten Daddy Mazda, noting that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to quasi-judicial bodies unless specifically empowered by statute

The "special category" protections for Armed Forces under Section 23 of the MRCA, intended to simplify possession recovery

The Court noted a discrepancy between the treatment of general appeals under Section 34 (where delay can be condoned) and Revisions under Section 44 (where power is silent)

The Judge reasoned that the precedent in Prakash Jain and Naranji Bhimji Family Trust primarily dealt with tenants seeking leave to defend or filing revisions

The Court observed that since the MRCA was designed as beneficiary legislation for special landlords (Armed Forces, Scientists), denying them the right to seek condonation of a minor delay (12 days) in a Revision—when they are otherwise deprived of a statutory appeal—would be harmonious to the legislative intent

The Court expressed that an Additional Commissioner, while not a "Court," should not leave a landlord remedy-less under Article 227 due to procedural rigidity

The Court formulated a question of law for determination by a Larger Bench: "Whether the revisional authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has power to condone a delay if the revision is filed by a landlord beyond a period of 90 days?"

The matter was referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for placement before a Larger Bench