ORDER
F.I. Rebello, J.
1. The matter was placed on Board on an application for interim relief. However, with the consent of the parties, the main revision itself was taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. On behalf of the applicant, it is contended that the order of the Competent Authority is without jurisdiction in as much as the Competent Authority could not have exercised jurisdiction as Part II-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 had not been extended to the area where the suit premises was located. Counsel has drawn my attention to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 2 of the Act. Counsel points out that in the instant case the provision of Part II-A or Part II or all of them could have been extended only by notification in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Act. It is contended that by Notification dated 8th August, 1958 Part II was extended to Chinchwad Village and thereafter on 21st January, 1993 there is a Notification extending the part to the entire Municipal area. It is pointed out that mere extension of Part II in the absence of Notification extending Part II-A is of no consequence. After hearing Counsel, I am of the opinion that the contention is devoid of any merits.
3. The entire matter has to be considered bearing in mind the amendment to the
Act brought about by Act Maharashtra 18 of 1987. Sub-section (3) of section 2 before
the said amendment read as under :–
“The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to any other area, any or all of the provisions of Part II, or Part III or both”.
After amendment of 1987 sub-section (3) of section 2 reads as under :
“The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to any other area, in or all of the provisions of Part II, Part II-A or Part III or all of them.”
The next relevant provision is sub-section (4) of section 6 of the Act which was
also included by virtue of the Amendment Act 18 of 1987. Sub-section (4) of section
6 reads as under :-
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, or any other provisions of this Act, the application of Part II to premises given by a landlord referred to in section 13A2 on or after the commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, 1986 on licence for residence shall be subject to the provisions of section 13A2 and of Part II-A”.
Section 6 forms a part of Part II of the Act. Part El was admittedly notified for the
Municipal area of Chinchwad on 21st January 1993 and earlier for the Panchayat area
of Chinchwad village on 8th August. 1958.
4. Section 13A2 forms a part of Part II of the Act, By virtue of section 13A2 the Competent Authority has been created to deal with the matters pertaining to Licensor- Licensee.
Part II-A of the Act is the part which provides for summary disposal of certain applications including application moved under section 13A2. Section 31A which is a part of Part II-A of the Act sets out that the provision of that part or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force.
If the contention of the Counsel for the applicant is accepted what it would mean is though the provision of section 13A2 are applicable nonetheless the Competent Authority which is the only Authority to deal with the matter would have no jurisdiction to proceed in terms of Part II-A which amongst other is the part dealing with the procedure of applications moved under sections 13(1)(2) even though the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred under section 31(1). Section 31(1) of Part II-A reads as under :-
“Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Competent Authority is empowered by of under this Act, to decide and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power so conferred on the Competent Authority.”
In other words what this means is that where the Competent Authority has to exercise jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. In terms of section 13A2 it is the Competent Authority who alone is conferred with the power of deciding application in respect of licensor and licensee. Accepting the argument on behalf of the Applicant would mean that though the State Government by notification has extended Part II, the Competent Authority cannot exercise the powers under Part II-A unless a specific notification is issued in terms of sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Act.
For the purpose of discussion the definition of Competent Authority is also to be considered. As defined under section 5(a)(1) Competent Authority means Competent Authority under section 31B. Section 31B as already pointed out forms a part of Part -II-A. Next relevant provision is section 13A2. This section was again substituted by section 13A1 and 13A2 by Maharashtra Act 18 of 1987. Therefore, the Competent Authority exercising jurisdiction would mean the Authority for the purpose of section 31B of the Act. 31-B provides that the Authority so appointed for the purpose of exercising powers conferred and duties imposed on him under this part in such local area as they be notified in the said Notification.
5. As pointed out earlier, what is most relevant is Act 18 of 1987. Part II-A of the Act itself was inserted by Act 18 of 1987. Therefore section 2 as it stood before its amendment by Act 18 of 1987, Part II-A did not form a part of the said section as there was no Part II-A. Notifications therefore when first issued in the year 1958, the question of issuing a notification in respect of Part II-A did not arise.
The question arose for the first time pursuant to the notification dated 21st January 1993 when the entire Municipal area of Chinchwad Municipal Corporation was included.
6. Whenever a Legislature brings about an amendment, the objects and reasons behind the amendment and mischief it wants to avoid if any has to be considered. If so considered and read harmoniously the object of the amendment becomes clear. In the instant case, Part II-A was introduced by Act 18 of 1987. Sub-section (4) of section 6 was also amended by Act 18 of 1987. Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 2 were also amended by Act 18 of 1987. Whereas earlier the Legislature had provided for issuance of notification in respect of Part II and Part III only, by the amendment power has been conferred to extend Part II-A also. However, by bringing into force subsection (4) of section 6 the Legislature itself has seen to it that if the provision of Part II have been extended to an area, Part II-A became automatically extended to an area, Part II-A became automatically extended by legislative fiction. In other words, there is no need to further issue a notification under section 2(3). What this means is that once Part II has been extended Part ll-A stands extended by legislative fiction. Section 13A2 forms part of Part II. Section 13A2 provides for Competent Authority. If Part II is
notified and not Part II-A result would be that though the Competent Authority is created yet the procedure for the authority to hold the enquiry under Part II-A is not there. Further what it would mean is that though a Competent Authority has been notified and by virtue of section 31(1) the Civil Courts jurisdiction is ousted, yet the Competent Authority cannot exercise jurisdiction because Part II-A has not been extended. A notification to that effect has to be issued. The Legislature considering the fact that State Government has issued notification extending Part II and on account of the amendments in Part II namely Competent Authority has to function and exercise powers set out in Part II-A has by section 6(4) extended Part II-A itself.
Sub-section (4) of section 6 must therefore be harmoniously read to mean that if Part II has been extended the provision of section 13A2 are subject to Part ll-A. Section 13A2 sets out that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a licensee in possession or occupation of premises given to him on licence for residence shall deliver possession of such premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of licence and on failure of the licensee to so deliver the possession of the licensed premises, a landlord can apply by application before a Competent Authority. Section 31A thereafter reads that the provisions of this Part or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force. In other words, a joint reading of these together makes it clear that by virtue of express provision of sub-section (4) of section 6 in an area where Part II has been extended the provisions of Part II-A shall be deemed to apply.
For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this revision application, which is accordingly rejected.
7. Counsel for the applicant seeks stay of the order for six weeks. On the applicant filing usual undertaking within two weeks from today, the respondent not to execute the order.
8. Respondent points out that monies have been deposited before the Competent Authority and in the absence of an order, he is not in a position to withdraw the same. There is some dispute about the exact money payable. However, the respondent would be able to withdraw the money deposited before the Competent Authority on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority.
9. Revision application dismissed.