The main legal point established in the judgment is that section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act applies only to premises given on license for residence, and not to premises given for business purposes.

In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. The short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether provisions of section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, the said Act) would entitle a landlord to recover possession of premises given for business purposes on expiry of the license granted in that regard.

2. Aforesaid question arises on the following facts. An agreement was entered into between each petitioner and respondent No. 1 by which each petitioner was granted license for a shop to conduct business of sale of prasad for a period of eleven months. Pursuant thereto each petitioner was put in possession of their respective shops. The possession of the respective shops were not handed over to respondent No. 1 after expiry of the licences. As the petitioners apprehended dispossession, suit for declaration that the agreement in question had been entered into by exercising undue influence and for permanent injunction to restrain respondent No. 1 from dispossessing the petitioners without following due process of law came to be filed. In said suit, the trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed separate applications against each petitioner under section 24 read with section 42 of the said Act before the Competent Authority praying that the possession of the shop blocks be directed to be delivered on account of expiry of the respective licenses. In said proceedings, the petitioners filed applications for grant of leave to defend the proceedings. A ground was also raised that the proceedings were not maintainable as the premises were not granted for residential purpose. By the impugned order, the Competent Authority held that provisions of section 24 of the said Act were not restricted only to residential premises and as provisions of section 24(2) of the said Act were attracted, the objection raised by each petitioner were not maintainable. It, therefore, rejected the objection raised by the petitioners that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. Being aggrieved, each petitioner has challenged said order.

3. Shri J.B. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that provisions of section 24 of the said Act laying down a separate procedure for recovery of possession were not applicable to premises given for business purposes. Said provisions were applicable only in respect of premises given on license for residence. He referred to provisions of section 41 of the said Act in that regard. According to him, aforesaid provisions made it amply clear that the special procedure was applicable only to premises given on license for residence. He therefore submitted that the objections raised by the petitioners deserved to be allowed. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :

[1] Surendra B. Agarwal and another vs. AML Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., 2010(1) Mh.L.J. 223.

[2] Dinesh Jagannath Khandelwal vs. Kundanlal s/o Perumal Chhabriya and ors., 2010(7) Mh.L.J. 719, 2010(2) ALL MR 588.

[3] Sails India vs. Rita M. Rupani, 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 269.

[4] AMI Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2014(3) Mh.L.J. 257.

[5] Mohd. Shafi vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge (VII), Allahabad and others, (1977) 2 SCC 226.

[6] Dinkar Keshav Deshmukh vs. Vasantdada Sugar Institute, Pune, 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 188.

[7] Philips India Ltd. vs. Labour Court, Madras and others, (1985) 3 SCC 103.

4. Shri A.M. Gordey, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned order and submitted that even though the premises in question had been given on license for business purpose, on the expiry of the license, the possession could be sought under provisions of section 24 of the said Act. He