JUDGMENT :

S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally with consent of parties at admission stage.

2. Petitioners (original opponents) have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik in Rent Revision Application No.538 of 2023 by which the order dated 26.5.2023 passed by the Competent Authority in Summary Application No.7 of 2012 has been confirmed, directing eviction of petitioners from suit house property.

3. Respondent/(original applicant) herein approached the competent authority under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 claiming relief of recovery of possession and damages double the rate of fees. Respondent contends that he is the owner of house property situated at ground floor on Survey No.37/3, plot no.27 of Gurukul Housing Society. On 7.10.2003 a ‘leave in license agreement, was executed in favour of late Rajendra Mahajan for the period of 11 months commencing from 7.10.2003 to 7.9.2004. The agreed rent was fixed at Rs.1,400/- per month which was regularly paid till expiry of the licence period. However, license premises was not vacated as agreed.

Prior to execution of the leave and licence agreement, the suit house was given to Raymond Woollen Mill on leave and licence basis. Rajendra Mahajan, being employee of said company, was occupying the premises. However, after dis-continuation of licence agreement with Raymond Woollen Mill, Rajendra Mahajan was put into possession on the basis of independent licence agreement dated 7.10.2003 between respondent and Rajendra Mahajan. After death of Rajendra Mahajan, his wife and daughters (petitioners) continued in possession of the suit house. (Parties hereinafter are referred to as per their original status.)

4. The applicant had issued a legal notice dated 2.8.2004 to Rajendra Mahajan asking him to vacate premises. He replied said notice through advocate V.K. Patil on 13.8.2004. After death of Rajendra Mahajan, another notice was issued on 23.01.2012 calling upon legal heirs of Rajendra Mahajan (petitioners) to vacate the premises and pay arrears of licence fees. However, contents of said notice were refuted by the opponents. Consequently, proceeding under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (for short referred to as ‘Rent Act’) was filed. The opponents were granted leave to defend. Consequently, they filed written statement. Opponents came with a case that the licence agreement is a forged document. Even, they denied the notice dated 2.8.2004 alleged to have been served upon late Rajendra Mahajan. They are coming with a specific case that they are monthly tenants on the suit house since 1989. The agreed rent was fixed @ Rs.700 p.m. which is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- p.m. as per English Calender. The applicant is not issuing rent receipts. Opponents are paying Municipal Taxes and Electricity bills as per the Meter installed by the Raymond Woollen Mill.

5. Competent Authority/Trial Court framed issues based on pleadings of the parties, recorded oral evidence and exhibited the documents relied upon by the parties.

6. The leave and license agreement dated 7.10.2003 was not registered. Consequently, applicant had filed application for impounding of the document and as per permission granted by the Court, it has been impounded and registered. Trial Court, after hearing the parties passed order dated 26.5.2023 directing opponen