JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Petitioner Shrikant Dattatraya Deshpande claims to be a "tenant". Indeed, much turns upon that expression, for respondent Jayant Waman Bhat asserts that Shrikant is only a licencee. Originally, Shalini Waman Bhat, Jayant's mother, as the owner, filed Application No.17 of 2004 under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, for evicting Shrikant. She filed that application before the Competent Authority, Pune Division. Through its order, dated 29th January 2005, the Competent Authority allowed that application.

2. Aggrieved, Shrikant filed Revision No.166 of 2005 before the Additional Commissioner, Pune. But the Additional Commissioner, too, dismissed the revision, through order dated 3rd March 2005. Then, Shrikant has filed this writ petition. Pending these proceedings, Shalini Waman Bhat died; so her son, Jayant, as the legal representative, has been prosecuting the case.

3. Though the facts seem to lie in a narrow compass, this case has a chequered history. It all began in 1986. So I need to set out the facts, as well as the course of litigation, briefly though.

4. On 1st June 1986, Shrikant and Mrs. Bhat signed an agreement. That agreement was for three years, that is until 31st May 1989. Through that agreement, Mrs. Bhat permitted Shrikant to live in a portion of her house. The bone of contention throughout has been whether the agreement created a lease or a licence. Plainly put, is Shrikant a tenant or a licensee?

5. Though the agreement ended in 1989, Shrikant continued to enjoy the property. On 3rd March 1994, Mrs. Bhat allegedly disrupted the power supply to the leased portion of the house. Therefore, Shrikant filed Application No.193 of 1994, before the Small Cause Court, Pune. He invoked Section 24 of the now-repealed Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act,1947. In that case, the issue was about the restoration of power supply. Incidentally, there arose a question about whether Shrikant is a tenant or a licensee.

6. Through its order dated 25th August 1994, the Small Cause Court ordered the restoration of power supply. Besides that, it also held that Shrikant is a tenant. Aggrieved, Mrs. Bhat filed a revision. The District Court allowed that revision. It seems that it has felt that the Small Cause Court ought not to have determined the status of the parties. At any rate, Shrikant impugned the revisional order in WP No.1272 of 1998. In June of the same year, this Court allowed that writ petition. Then, Mrs. Bhat filed a Civil Application in that disposed-of Writ Petition.

7. In the Civil Application No.5856 of 1998, Mrs. Bhat contended that the Court's observation that Shrikant was a tenant would prejudice her cause before the Civil Court, where she had sued for recovery of possession. I will refer to it soon. Then, this Court, through its Order, dated 17th June 1998 in the Civil Application, held that the expressions employed in the order about the parties' status should not prejudice their rights before the Civil Court.

8. Now, I will refer to the Civil Suit. Mrs. Bhat filed Special Civil Suit No.8 of 1995 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, for recovery of possession from Shrikant. In that suit, first, Mrs. Bhat maintained that Shrikant is a licensee and that the agreement is a leave and license agreement. She has pleaded that her remedy before the Authorities under the Act stands barred by efflux of time. So she sought from the Civil Court the remedy of recovering possession from Shrikant.

9. Then, Shrikant, as the defendant, applied under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. He wanted the Civil Court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. As a result, on 24th June 2003, the Civil Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, Mrs. Bhat filed Writ Petition No.346 of 2004. This Court, through its Judgment, dated 13th April 2004, disposed of the writ petition holding that Mr