JUDGMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J. :---This is a revision petition filed against the order dated 24-3-1995 in Application No. 41 of 1994 on the file of Competent Authority (Rent Act), Konkan Division, Bombay. Heard both the sides.

2. The respondent filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner before the Competent Authority alleging that the petitioner is staying in the suit premises as a licensee and since the period of licence has expired, he is liable to be evicted.

The petitioners contention was that he is not a licensee, but he is a tenant in possession, and therefore, entitled to protection of the Rent Act.

After recording evidence and hearing both the sides, the learned Authority has held that the transaction between the parties is one of leave and licence and since the period of licence has expired, he directed the licensee to vacate the suit premises. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has come up in revision.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the question whether a particular transaction is one of a lease or licence is a mixed question of law and fact and the finding of the Competent Authority is erroneous, and therefore, the petition requires to be admitted. Reliance was placed on A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1262, (Associated Hotels of India v. R.N. Kapur)1. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.

4. It is true as observed by the Supreme Court in Associated Hotels of Indias case A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1262 that the question whether in a particular case the transaction is one of a lease or licence is a question of fact to be decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the contents of the document, the intention of the parties etc. But in my view, in the present case, we are guided by a special legislation viz. the Bombay Rent Act which contains provisions for leave and licence in addition to tenancies. A special forum is created for eviction of licensees who are continuing in the premises after the expiry of the licence period.

Section 13-A-2(1) of the Bombay Rent Act provides a procedure for eviction of a licensee before a competent authority. Then a special rule of evidence is prescribed in section 13-A-2(3)(b) which provides that an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.

In view of this special rule of evidence prescribed under the Act we cannot go beyond the document to find out the intention of the parties, the circumstances of the case, the nature of possession etc. as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Associated Hotels of Indias case. That rule may be applicable to leases under the general law. But we are concerned with the leave and licence under a particular statute which prohibits taking of extraneous factors other than the contents of the document to find out the nature of the transaction.

5. Now in the instant case, the learned Authority has considered the relevant clauses of the agreement and oral evidence adduced by the parties and has come to the conclusion that the transaction between the parties is one of a leave and licence and that the licensee is liable to be evicted on the expiry of the licence period. As far as this point is concerned, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record or error of jurisdiction on the part of the Competent Authority in passing the impugned order.

6. Then a grievance was made that in the agreement the clause relating to payment of security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- has been struck off by the petitioner in the original agreement and that payment of Rs. 50,000/- is an indication that the transaction is one of a lease and not licence. Some explanation is given by the landlord to show under what circumstances he scored off that particular clause. In my view, this contention will not help the petitioner in any way since it is not his case either in the written statement or in the evidence that he had paid cash of Rs. 50,000/- as se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document