Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.M. Lodha, J.
M/s. Sails India.... Petitioner.
Versus
Mrs. Rita M. Rupani.... Respondent.
Civil Revision Application No. 621 of 1996, decided on 24-9-1996.
Advocates appeared :
A.V. Anturkar with Nainar Dayakar, for the petitioner.
.S. Vakil with R.V. Jadhav, for the respondent.
The licensee contested the application made by the licensor and set up the defence that in fact the premises were taken on tenancy and the agreement for tenancy was styled as leave and licence agreement.
Section 13-A(2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act is the entitlement of the licensor to recover possession of premises given on licence on expiry of licence and it provides that a licensee in possession or occupation of premises given to hin1 on licence shall deliver the said premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of licence and on the failure of the licensee to so deliver the possession of the licensed premises, the landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of such premises from the licensee on expiry of the period of licence by making an application to the Competent Authority, If a licensee has taken possession or occupation of the premises on licence for residence. he is covered under Section 13-A(2) whether he is an individual he or the she or any other entity, The word him used in sub-section (1) of Section 13-A(2) does not confine the licensees why are he or she but includes the licensees who have taken the premises on license to any other capacity,• What is material is that the licensee must have taken possession or occupation of the premises on licence for residence whether he is individual or any other entity, The expression him or he occurring in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 13A(2) respectively, as indicated above is not confined to an individual he or she but all other entitles. Even otherwise under Section 13 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, when it provides that the words importing masculine gender shall be taken to include females, it only provides the inclusive definition of the word importing the masculine gentler but does not exclude others. Moreover, the dominant expression in Section 13-A(2) is licensee and now him or he occurring in sub-section (IJ and sub-section (2) respectively of Section 13-A(2) and, therefore, once a licensee is in possession or occupation of the premises given to him on licence for residence and the possession is not delivered by the licensee on expiry of licence, a special remedy is made available to the licensor under Section 13-A(2). In this view of the matter the second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also without any substance.
2.On 30-7-1996, the Competent Authority (Rent Act), Konkan Division, Bombay, allowed the application made by the respondent herein Mrs. Rita M. Rupani under section 13-A2 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'Bombay Rent Control Act') and directed the present applicant M/s. Sails India to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question i.e. one Hall, one Bedroom, one Bath room with W.C. of Rizvi Park, 5th floor, Rizvi Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., S. V. Road, Santacruz (West), Bombay, within 30 days of the passing of the impugned order and also directed the present revisionist to pay leave and licence fee i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per month as compensation from and after 1st February, 1994 till the possession is handed over. This order came to be passed on the application made by Mrs. Rita M. Rupani, respondent herein (for short 'Licensor') before the Competent Authority. It was inter alia averred in the application by the licensor that the applicant herein M/s. Sails India (for short 'Licensee') executed a leave and licence agreement on 1-4-1992 whereby the licensor agreed to give part of her residential Flat No. 501-A at Rizvi Park, consisting of one Hall, one room and one Toilet except the premises occupied by Sargur Pharmaceuticals (for short 'disputed premises') on leave and licence basis for use by the licensee for a period of 11 months and the licensee agreed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month for the aforesaid premises. It is further case of the licensor that on expiry of the leave and licence agreement dated 1-4-1992, another leave and licence agreement was executed on 16-3-1993 whereby the licensor agreed to give the disputed premises on licence for use by the licensee for peaceful residential purposes for a period of 11 months and the licensee agreed to pay compensation of Rs. 6000/- per month. On expiry of the said licence when the licensee did not hand over peaceful vacant possession of the disputed premises to the licensor, the application was made by the licensor before the Competent Authority praying therein that licensee be directed to hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises to the licensor and the licensee be also directed to pay damages at double the rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month from and after 1st February, 1994. Ancillary relief of interest on outstanding amount of damages was also sought by the licensor.
3.The licensee contested the application made by the licensor and set up the defence that in fact the premises were taken on tenancy and the agreement for tenancy was styled as leave and licence agreement. The licensee set up the plea that the application before the Competent Authority was not maintainable and the premises were also taken for non-residential use.
4.The parties led evidence before the Competent Authority and after enquiry, the Competent Authority held that he has power and jurisdiction to entertain and try the application. It was also held by the Competent Authority that the application made by the licensor under section 13-A2 of the Bombay Rent Control Act was maintainable. The Competent Authority also reached the conclusion that the licensor has proved that the disputed premises were given to the licensee for residential purposes and that the document was a document for leave and licence and not colourable document and camouflage to circumvent the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. Accordingly, as indicated above, the Competent Authority by order dated 30-7-1996 allowed the application and directed the licensee to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the licensor.
5.The licensee in the present revision application takes exception to the aforesaid order.
6.Mr. A.V. Anturkar, the learned Coun
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
