SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
Golden Legend Leasing and Finance Ltd. and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Dilip Manohar Amladi and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15477 of 2022, Interim Application No. 4733 of 2023
Decided On : 05-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sunil Kumar Singh.
For the Respondents: Girish Godbole, Raj Patel, Neha Mehta, Aayushi Gohil, M.T. Miskita.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 3(1)(b), and Section 24 - Eviction of Licensee - Petitioners challenged eviction order citing paid-up capital exceeding Rs. 1 crore, claiming exemption from the Act - Competent Authority's eviction order was affirmed despite petitions - Court found eviction application not maintainable, quashed prior orders - Jurisdiction of Competent Authority questioned due to exceeding capital limit - The Act's provisions applied solely to 'let' premises, not licenses. (Paras 1-34)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioners entered a Leave and License Agreement for four years but defaulted on license fee payments. Respondents terminated the agreement and sought eviction, alleging accumulative dues. Eviction was ordered following the Competent Authority's interpretation of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act.

Findings of Court:
Court established the exemption under Section 3(1)(b) applies to the premises due to the Petitioners’ financial status, reversing previous eviction orders and ruling the application's lack of jurisdiction.

Issues: The key issues were whether the Eviction Application was maintainable under Section 3(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act and the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority regarding license agreements and eviction applications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that exemptions under Section 3(1)(b) based on paid-up capital do not extend to licenses; thus the Rent Control Act was inapplicable to the case, confirming no jurisdiction for eviction seeking.

Result: Petition allowed; eviction orders quashed.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges eviction under rent control act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondents claim arrears and eviction due to non-payment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. petitioners filed defenses based on jurisdiction arguments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. arguments on applicability of rent control act standards. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. distinction between licenses and rentals emphasized. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. court insights on rental jurisdiction challenges. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. court ruling on non-applicability of act determines outcome. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
8. past decisions guide current rent jurisdiction. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
9. supreme court rulings are critical to interpretation. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
10. petition is granted, allowing withdrawal of deposit. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

1. This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 23rd December 2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, in Appeal/Desk/ MRCA /Rev/531/2021 dismissing the Revision Application filed by the Petitioners against the order dated 20th October 2021 of the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, (the “Rent Control Act”) confirming the said order directing eviction of the Petitioners from Flat No. 16, admeasuring approximately 1200 sq.feet built up area on the 6th floor (the “said flat/premises”) of the Galaxy Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited, in the building known as Galaxy, standing upon land situate at 111, B.J.Road, Bandra (West), 400 050.

2. The brief facts are that in or about 21st January 2019, the Petitioner no. 1 and the Respondents entered into a Leave and License Agreement registered with the Joint Sub Registrar, Mumbai Sub Division, Bandra, pursuant to which the Respondents granted to Petitioner no. 1 license to use the said premises for a period of 36 months viz. from 22nd January 2019 to 21st January, 2022 and the Petitioner no. 1, as a licensee, would pay monthly license fees /compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- for the first twelve months i.e. from 22nd January 2019 up to 21st January 2020 and thereafter Rs.2,36,250/- for the next twelve months i.e. from 22nd January 2020 to 21st January 2021 and further Rs.2,48,000/- during the last twelve months of the licensed period i.e. from 22nd January 2021 upto 21st January 2022. The Respondent no. 1 was to make payment of license fees in advance during the license period so as to reach the Respondents-landlord / licensor no later than two days from the commencement of each and every quarterly period during the license period, subject to deduction of TDS, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Respondent no. 1 also deposited interest free security deposit of Rs.6,75,000/- as per the said agreement to be refunded after deducting lawful dues post receiving possession of the said flat/premises as per the terms of the agreement.

3. As per the agreement, the Respondents were entitled to terminate the said agreement in any of the circumstances where the Petitioner no. 1 had committed breach of default of the terms and provisions of the said agreement and / or if any licensee fees or other amounts / charges payable by the Petitioner no. 1 under the said agreement were in arrears and remained unpaid for a period of seven days after the same had become due and payable and in which case the Respondents would be entitled to terminate the said agreement by giving the Petitioners notice in writing specifying breach of default and calling upon the Petitioners to remedy or make good the same. If the Petitioners failed or neglected to remedy to make good the breach of default within a period of fifteen days from the date of such written notice, then the said agreement would stand terminated and cancelled upon the expiry of such notice period of fifteen days.

4. It is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioners were irregu

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top