DECISION :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. Petitioner Vasim Ismuddin Khan is a licensee and third-respondent Francis Vincent Soares is the licensor/owner. Seeking Vasim's eviction, Francis filed ejectment Application No. 108 of 2015, under Section 24 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, before the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Mumbai. On contest, the learned Competent Authority allowed Francis's application.

2. Aggrieved, Vasim took the matter in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, in Revision Application No. 410 of 2017. Concurring with the Competent Authority, the Additional Commissioner too refused to interfere. Finally, Vasim has come before this Court, by filing this Writ petition.

Submissions:

Petitioner's:

3. Shri Ram Ugrah Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that both the Authorities below have committed gross errors in adjudication. To elaborate, he has submitted that though the very identity of the property is in dispute, the Authorities have not addressed that issue. Then, he has taken me through the record to contend that the leave and license agreement, Francis relied on before the Authorities, remained unregistered. So he contends that Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act nullifies that document.

4. Shri Singh has further pointed out that under an agreement of sale with a builder what Francis got is one particular property. But Francis sought Vasim's eviction from entirely a different property. In elaboration, Shri Singh has submitted that the property Francis purchased or possessed from the builder is shown on the first floor. Yet the property shown in the eviction proceedings lies on the 4th floor. This vital aspect, he stresses, has missed the attention of both the Authorities.

5. In further elaboration, Shri Singh has also submitted that Vasim came into possession of the property even before the alleged leave and license agreement could be executed. Plainly put, Vasim purchased the property in 2011, through an agreement of sale, by paying "part consideration." So his possession must have been treated as that of the owner, rather than as that of a licensee.

6. In the end, Shri Singh has submitted that as the leave and license agreement remained unregistered, it ought not to have been looked into for whatever purpose. That apart, because of the dispute about the identity of the property, both the impugned orders, according to him, suffer from incurable legal infirmities. Thus, Shri Singh wants this Court to stay "at least for the time being" the execution proceedings Francis has taken out, before the Court could adjudicate the dispute finally.

Third Respondent's

7. In response, Shri Ashish Dubey, the learned counsel for the third respondent, has submitted that if the leave and license agreement did not have registration, so did the alleged agreement of sale under which Vasim claims to have secured his possession. If neither could be looked into, the position remains that Vasim's possession, if it were to be legally termed possession, is illegal. To elaborate, Shri Dubey has submitted that Vasim must be treated as a trespasser; if he is not a licensee-in permissive possession. In either perspective, Francis, Shri Dubey asserts, has taken recourse to due process of law; approached the competent authority; secured an order of eviction, which stands confirmed by the Revision Authority; and only then has he sought Vasim's eviction.

8. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court may not, urges Shri Dubey, revisit the matter as if it were hearing an appeal and adjudicate on the disputed questions of fact. So he wants this Court to dismiss the Writ petition.

9. Heard Shri Ram Ugrah Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Ashish Dubey, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

Discussion:

10. Initially, Shri Singh wanted the Court to take up the matter for providing the petitioner an interim relief, especially, because of the