The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exemption provision under Section 3(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act applied to the premises, and the legal consequence of deemed tenancy continued under the new legislation, unaffected by subsequent agreements.

JUDGMENT :

This petition challenges orders passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division and Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division for eviction of the Petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“Act”). By consent of the parties, Rule is granted and taken up for hearing forthwith.

2. By a leave and licence agreement dated 16 May 1971, one Sita Kayship, who was the owner of the suit premises (which is a fat, being Flat No.5 in ‘Shivsagar’ building at Block No.19, Worli Sea Face, Worli, Mumbai 400 018), gave it on licence to the Petitioner. It is the Petitioner’s case that this licence was subsisting as on 1 February 1973 and accordingly, the Petitioner became a deemed tenant of the suit premises. It is submitted that though deemed tenancy was a legal status acquired by the Petitioner by operation of law, since, at the request of Ms.Kayship, the rent was to be enhanced from Rs.525 to Rs.600, a fresh agreement purportedly extending the licence was executed between the parties on 30 July 1973 providing interalia for such enhanced rent/compensation. After the suit premises changed hands, purported by purchase from Ms.Kayship to her husband Prannath Kayship and through a gift deed from him to his son Ravindra Kayship, a fresh agreement providing for payment of increased rent was executed between the parties. Ravindra Kayship thereafter sold the suit premises to one late Savitri Dubey, who is the predecessor of the contesting respondent herein (Respondent No.3). By an agreement dated 21 April 2001, a further licence was purported to be created in favour of the Petitioner by late Savitri, providing once again for further enhanced rent. Sometime in 2005, the Petitioner, fearing eviction from the late Savitri, fled a suit under Section 33 of the Act in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai (being RAD Suit No.600 of 2005) for a declaration that it was a deemed tenant of late Savitri. This suit has been pending hearing and final disposal before that court. During the pendency of that suit, late Savitri fled an application (being Application No.13 of 2005) before the Competent Authority for eviction of the Petitioner as a licensee of the suit premises. The Petitioner applied for leave to defend. Leave was denied by the Competent Authority. Upon the Petitioner’s revision application from that order being rejected, the Petitioner fled a civil writ petition (being Writ Petition No.7380 of 2005). By an order dated 30 January 2013, passed on that petition, the impugned orders were set aside and the Petitioner was granted leave to defend. A Letters Patent Appeal, fled by late Savitri from that order, was rejected by a division bench of this court. So also, was a review petition from the Letters Patent order. Pursuant to leave, which thus became final, the Petitioner fled its written statement and also an additional written statement. Evidence was thereafter led by the parties and the matter was heard by the Competent Authority. By its order dated 15 June 2018, the Competent Authority allowed the eviction application. That order was confirmed in revision by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. These two orders have been challenged in the present petition.

3. Mr.V.A. Thorat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, makes the following submissions :

(i) It is submitted, firstly, that the Petitioner being a government company, or a public sector undertaking, the suit premises being let to it are exempt from the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that despite holding (in answer to Issue No.7) that the premises were so exempted, the Competent Authority went on to entertain the application for eviction of the Petitioner from the suit premises under Section 24 of the Act, committing thereby a jurisdictional error.

(ii) Learned Counsel, secondly, submits that the Petitioner being a licensee of the suit premises, not being less than a room, under a subsisting licence as on 1 February 1973 became a d