( 1 ) THE petitioner is the original applicant. It is a proprietary concern. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner owns Flat No. 6 situate on the Third Floor, in the premises known as Sunda Heights at 1368, kasba Peth, Pune (for short, "the suit premises" ). The respondent had taken the suit premises on leave and licence for a period of 11 months with effect from 21-12-1999 at a monthly license fee of Rs. 3,000/ -. The said leave and licence agreement was executed on 21-12-1999. The respondent was required to vacate the suit premises on or before 20-11-2000. According to the petitioner, on the expiry of the said period, the respondent failed to vacate the suit premises. The petitioner, therefore, sent a notice dated 29-12-2000 calling upon the respondent to vacate the suit premises. The said notice was duly received by the respondent. However, the respondent did not give any reply to the said notice nor did he vacate the suit premises.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the Competent authority, Pune, being Application No. 31 of 2001 under section 43 of the maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, "the said Act") praying, inter alia, that the respondent may be directed to remove himself from the suit premises and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the petitioner.

( 3 ) IT appears that the summons was served on the respondent on 6-7-2002. The respondent filed his written statement. However, he failed to apply for leave to defend and also failed to file necessary affidavit till 5-9-2002. The Competent authority, therefore, referred to section 43 (4) (a) of the said Act and observed that as per section 43 (4) (a) it was incumbent upon the respondent to obtain leave to defend within thirty days from the date of service of summons. It was further observed that as per the said provision, if a person fails to obtain leave to defend within 30 days from the date of service of summons, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant or the licensee, as the case may be, and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction. The Competent Authority observed that the petitioner had pleaded licensor-licensee relationship. It is the petitioner's case that the licence had expired on 20-11-2000 but the respondent had not obtained leave to defend and, hence, the contentions of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondent. In view of this, the application was allowed on 24-9- 2002.

( 4 ) THE respondent filed revision application being Revision Application no. 105 of 2003 before the Appellate Competent Authority, Divisional commissioner Pune at Pune. The respondent stated that his advocate had committed a mistake. The respondent claimed to be the owner of the suit premises and prayed that the matter may be remanded so that he would get opportunity to adduce evidence before the trial Court. By consent of the parties, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the Competent Authority on a condition that the respondent deposits a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- with the competent Authority within a period of one week from the date of that order. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority on 23-7-2004.

( 5 ) AFTER remand, the respondent's application for leave to defend being application No. 31 of 2001 was heard by the Competent Authority. The competent Authority took a view that as the matter was for fresh hearing, it is necessary to see whether the application for leave to defend is within thirty days from 31-/-2004. The Competent Authority further observed that it is necessary to consider the application for leave to defend on merits because opportunity must be given to the respondent to put forward his case. The Competent Authority allowed the application for leave to defend on the ground that the respondent has contended that though the agreement is styled as le