The main legal point established in the judgment is that the terms of the expired leave and licence agreement, the negotiations for renewal, and the possession of the suit premises by the respondents were crucial in determining the rights and obligations of the parties.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondent waives notice. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

2. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 11th March 2011 passed by learned District Judge-10, Pune dismissing the Petitioner's revision, being Revision Application No.26 of 2010. Consequently, trial court's order rejecting the Petitioner's application at Exhibit-54 in Civil Suit No.433 of 2006 stood confirmed.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows : The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the Respondent is the original Defendant. The Petitioner filed Civil Suit No.433 of 2006 for possession and arrears of rent with averments that the licence was executed by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondents for the period of 33 months for licence fees (compensation) of Rs.2 lacs per month subject to increase by 10% after the end of 24 months. It is specific case of the Petitioner that the leave and licence agreement expired on 31st March 2005 and after the expiry of the same, the Respondent persuaded the Petitioner to renew the leave and licence agreement for further period of 11 months. The Petitioner was ready and willing to renew the said agreement provided the Respondent pays an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- per month towards monthly licence fee, which is the market rate of licence fee. There was correspondence between the parties in that regard but agreement of leave and licence agreement was not renewed. The Respondent despite expiry of leave and licence agreement failed to vacate the suit premises and therefore suit came to be filed for aforesaid reliefs.

4. The Respondent by filing written statement has contested the suit. It is the case of the Respondent that the execution of leave and licence agreement was a stop gap arrangement and the Petitioner has agreed to sell the entire premises to the Respondent and accordingly minutes of meeting dated 8th May 2002 were recorded between the parties. It is the case of the Respondent that in accordance with the agreement in the meeting dated 8th May 2002, leave and licence agreement was executed.

5. The Petitioner in above suit moved an application at Exhibit-54 seeking directions to the Respondent for payment of arrears of the licence fee and compensation during the pendency of suit. This application was opposed by the Respondent by re-iterating the stand taken in the written statement. The learned trial Court rejected this application by its order dated 1st February 2010. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing revision before the District Court at Pune, which also came to be dismissed by the order impugned in this petition.

6. Mr. Kamdar, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner took me through the leave and licence agreement dated 6th July 2002 as well as alleged agreement to sell. He also invited my attention and took me through the provisions of Order-XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and submitted that leave and licence period has already expired. He also submitted that the Respondents were put in possession of the suit premises in pursuance of the leave and licence agreement. He disputed the alleged agreement of sale. He submitted that it was the duty of the Respondent to remove themselves from the suit property and hand over possession of the same to the Petitioner. The Respondents, however, failed and therefore they have become unauthorised occupants and liable to be evicted. In these facts and circumstances he submitted that Courts below ought to have exercised powers under Order-XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by directing the Respondents to deposit the arrears of licence fee upto date.

7. Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for the Respondents, on the contrary, supported the impugned order. He submitted that the leave and li