The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking intervention in the section of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The petition has been filed for the following reliefs: –
-to intervene in the section 16(g), 16(2), 53, 55(3) and 56(2), 60 of the Maharashtra Rent control Act, 1999, to protect the rights of the tenants at large and provide justice to them by directing to the Respondent for amendment, omission, addition etc.;
-to interpret in the section 16(g), 16(2), 53, 55(3) and 56(2) of the Maharashtra Rent control Act, 1999, for protect the rights of the tenants and provide justice to the tenants;
-court may appoint commissions to collect information on facts and present it before the bench to avoid injustice.
From a bare perusal of the prayers made by the petitioner, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor noted that the petition has been filed only for academic purpose as the petitioner calls upon us to interpret certain provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and to further direct the respondents (State) to amend/omit/add in the said provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
“In absence of any cause of action, if the petitioner calls upon the Court to interpret some piece of legislation, admittedly, the petition would not be maintainable. Further, the petitioner has prayed that the State be directed to make amendments/omissions/additions etc. in the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. This, in fact, is impermissible for the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The PIL petition is entirely misconceived. It is hereby dismissed”, the order reads.