IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Snehal Shailesh Borana - Petitioner
Vs.
Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and Ors. - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.5994 OF 2024
Decided On : 12-08-2024
Eviction - Rent Control Act - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (Sections 24, 43) - The court found that the Competent Authority erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 24, as the possession was linked to an Agreement for Sale, not a Leave and License Agreement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged eviction orders based on a Leave and License Agreement, claiming possession through a subsequent Agreement for Sale. The respondents sought eviction due to alleged non-payment of license fees and incomplete sale consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the Competent Authority incorrectly linked possession solely to the expired Leave and License Agreement, ignoring the implications of the Agreement for Sale, which indicated a transfer of interest.
Issues: Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to order eviction under Section 24 of the MRC Act given the existence of an Agreement for Sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the respondents admitted that the petitioner's possession was based on the Agreement for Sale, the Competent Authority lost jurisdiction to entertain the eviction application under Section 24.
Result: The eviction orders were set aside, allowing the respondents to pursue their civil suit regarding the Agreement for Sale.
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioner has challenged orders dated 2 November 2023 passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Konkan Division, Mumbai, directing him to handover possession of the Flat to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with further direction to pay damages at the rate of double the license fees from 18 October 2021 till delivery of the possession. The Competent Authority’s order dated 2 November 2023 has been confirmed in Revision by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division by dismissing Revision Application No.664 of 2023 vide order dated 26 March 2024, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case, as pleaded by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the eviction application, are that they are the owners of Flat No.1304, Building No.68, Kurla Sahayog Co-operative Housing Society, Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), Mumbai- 400 024 (the Flat). Leave and License Agreement dated 1 December 2019 was executed between Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Petitioner granting license in respect of the flat for a period of 22 months commencing from 18 December 2019 to 17 October 2021 for license fees of Rs.33,500/- for first 11 months and Rs.34,500/- for next 11 months. Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by Petitioner to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 towards security deposit. The leave and license agreement came to be registered on 3 December 2019 in the office of Sub Registrar Mumbai-3. It was averred in the application that Petitioner’s husband Mr. Shailesh Borana used to pay the license fees to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as mutual understanding between Petitioner and her husband. That Petitioner paid license fees as agreed under the Agreement during the first 11 months tenure. However, in respect of second 11 months’ tenure she was irregular in payment of license fees. That Petitioner’s husband sent WhatsApp messages falsely claiming payment in the Bank account of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which messages turned out to be false after checking the Bank account by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. According to them, this is how Petitioner committed breach of the terms and conditions of the license. That Petitioner failed to pay the electricity charges, on account of which the electricity supply company issued notices. That the conduct of the Petitioner was source of complaints by the Managing Committee of the Society. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 therefore issued notice dated 7 June 2021 seeking to terminate the License Agreement. That after receipt of termination notice Petitioner paid Rs.69,000/- in cash in Licensor’s Bank account, which did not tally with the amount payable under the License Agreement.
4. It is further averred in the application that instead of vacating the Flat at the end of the license period, Petitioner represented to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that she would purchase the premises and would pay double the amount of license fees towards retention of possession of Flat till payment of full and final consideration for the transaction. Accordingly, Agreement for Sale was executed on 28 October 2021 and registered on 1 November 2021. That as per the said Agreement, the entire amount of consideration was to be paid within 60 days from date of registration of the Agreement. That full and final consideration as per the Agreement for Sale was not paid by Petitioner. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 pleaded the entire details about the various events and payments made under the Agreement for Sale from time to time. According to them, out of agreed amount of consideration of Rs.1 crore, only Rs.85 lakhs have been received by them, that too after considerable delay and the balance amount of consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- is not paid till date.
5. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 accordingly filed Application No.224 of 2022 before the Competent Authority by invoking the jurisdictio
Possession linked to an Agreement for Sale negates the Competent Authority's jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act for eviction proceedings.
A residential license agreement's terms govern usage, and partial commercial use does not nullify eviction rights under statutory provisions.
Competent Authority under Section 24 MRC Act limits eviction inquiry to leave and license agreement; extraneous documents claiming renovation costs as security deposits cannot defeat summary eviction....
Important Point : The jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is contingent on the license being granted for residential purposes; commercial licenses require l....
The nature of an agreement, whether lease or license, is determined by the real intention of the parties as decipherable from the document and surrounding circumstances. The court's interference with....
Point of law: The effect of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC was considered in recording such observations. It was not an instance with reference to application of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC. This claus....
It is well settled that rights of parties will have to be determined on basis of rights available to them on date of suit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.