Back
Bombay HC Draws Line: No Side Deals in Licensee Evictions—Stick to the License Agreement
In a landmark ruling reinforcing swift justice for landlords, the dismissed a by licensee Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui, upholding eviction orders against him from Flat No. 143, B-Wing, 14th floor, Heera Panna CHS in Mumbai's Tulsiwadi. Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled that Competent Authorities under must limit their summary inquiry strictly to the , ignoring ancillary documents like MOUs claiming extra security deposits or renovation costs.
This decision, pronounced on , clarifies why licensees can't cling to properties post-term by citing unrecorded improvements, boosting confidence in Mumbai's rental market.
From License to Lockout: The Flat That Sparked a Legal Battle
Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi, the flat's owner, granted Farooqui a 36-month license starting , for Rs. 1.3 lakh monthly fees plus a Rs. 3 lakh security deposit. The agreement explicitly stated the premises were on an "" basis—no claims for alterations, which would become the licensor's property.
License expired . Farooqui refused to vacate, claiming he spent Rs. 50 lakhs on renovations, treated as additional security deposit per a MOU, Indemnity Bond, and Affidavit. He demanded Rs. 53 lakhs total before leaving.
Ragoowansi filed Eviction Application No. 240/2024. The Competent Authority ordered possession handover within 30 days plus double damages (Rs. 2.6 lakhs/month) from . Revision under failed, leading to this writ under .
Licensee's Gambit: Forged Papers and PoA Doubts vs. Landlord's Simple Expiry Plea
Petitioner's Defense: Farooqui argued a "typographical error" turned his into a mere reply, denying him a hearing. He pushed the MOU as integral, entitling him to stay rent-free until refund. He attacked the eviction filing via Ragoowansi's —allegedly forged, executed abroad but notarized in Mumbai—as invalidating proceedings (citing ). He sought remand for full consideration.
Respondent's Rebuttal: Ragoowansi called the MOU, Bond, and Affidavit forgeries—dated same day but at different locations (Mumbai vs. Mumbra), on mismatched stamps. The registered License Agreement prevails, barring claims for additions (Clauses 13, 20). PoA issues weren't raised below; courts presume validity ( ). Arrears topped Rs. 62 lakhs by . She invoked Sanath Kumar Sanjib Das v. Fernandes Anthony John (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2135) limiting CA to license expiry and against .
Court's Sharp Scalpel: Summary Eviction Means License Agreement Only
Justice Marne dissected the MRC Act's summary scheme under Sections 24 and 43: Designed for quick landlord relief, it checks only license expiry as a "." Ancillary docs like MOUs can't expand scope into full civil trials, or owners would shun rentals fearing endless holds.
Drawing from
Sanath Kumar
(MoU-sale link irrelevant; CA ignores non-license terms), the court deemed renovation claims irrelevant:
"Mere renovation... does not create any right higher than that of a mere licensee."
Licensee risks spending on others' property; no possession lien for refunds.
The MOU reeked of inconsistency—licensor "paying" Rs. 50 lakhs as deposit? Unworkable, contradicting the registered agreement. PoA and defense procedural flaws didn't sway: Expiry trumps all.
As echoed in reports, this upholds the Act's goal: Unlocking urban housing via assured quick repossession.
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
"The Competent Authority is not expected to take into consideration any document other than the while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 and 43 of the MRC Act."
"No amount of expenditure incurred on repairing or renovating the licensed premises can entitle the licensee to latch on to possession of the licensed premises. It is the risk taken by the licensee to spend money on property belonging to the licensor."
"If parties desire to have any different contractual arrangement governing the license, the same needs to be reflected in the license agreement and cannot be recorded in a separate document."
" of licensees has instilled a sense of security amongst the house owners who find it encouraging to offer their houses for being used by the licensees."
Eviction Upheld: Landlords Rejoice, Licensees Beware
The and interim applications were dismissed sans costs. Farooqui must vacate, pay escalating double damages post-adjusting Rs. 3 lakhs deposit.
This binds future CAs to license-only scrutiny, streamlining evictions and signaling: Document extras in the agreement or litigate separately. Mumbai's rental ecosystem gains—owners rent freer, knowing courts prioritize expiry over side-hustle claims.
