IMPORTANT POINT
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 litigation in Small Causes Court.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep V. Marne, J.)

1) The issue involved in the present Petition is about jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under the provisions of Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) to try and entertain application for eviction filed by Petitioner-Licensor for eviction of Respondent No.3-licensee in the light of dispute amongst them about the exact purpose for which the license is granted. Under Section 24 of the MRC Act, the Competent Authority has jurisdiction to order eviction of licensee where the license is granted only for residential purpose. If the license is granted for purpose other than residential, the Competent Authority loses jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Act and the Licensor would then need to institute a Suit before Small Causes Court for eviction of licensee. While it is the contention of Petitioner-Licensor that the license was granted purely for residential purpose, it is the contention of Respondent No.3-licensee that the license was for commercial purpose, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the MRC Act. The short issue that therefore arises for consideration is whether license has been granted by Petitioner-Licensor in favour of Respondent No.3-licensee for residential or commercial purposes.

2) The issue arises in the light of challenge set up by the Petitioner to order dated 19 September 2024 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division allowing Revision Application by Respondent No.3-licensee and setting aside the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority on 6 August 2024 in Eviction Application No.178 of 2023. The Competent Authority had rejected the application filed by Respondent No.3- licensee for grant of leave to defend under the provisions of Section 43 of the MRC Act on the ground that the premises are let out for residential purposes. Simultaneous with the rejection of leave to defend vide order dated 6 August 2024, the Competent Authority proceeded to allow Eviction Application by separate order passed on the same day directing Respondent No.3 -licensee to handover possession of the licensed premises to the Petitioner -Licensor with further direction to pay damages @ Rs.2,00,000/- per month from 2 April 2022 till the date of handing over of possession of the premises. The eviction order dated 6 August 2024 passed by the Competent Authority has been set aside by the Revisional Authority by allowing the Revision preferred by Respondent No.3-licensee vide order dated 19 September 2024 by holding that the license was granted for commercial purposes. Order dated 19 September 2024 passed by the Revisional Authority is the subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.

3) Facts of the case as pleaded in the Petition are that the Petitioner is the owner in respect of Flat No. A/1102, Juhu Griha Swapna CHSL, JVPD, Juhu, Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400056 (licensed premises). According to Petitioner, Respondent No.3 needed residential premises in Juhu and approached the Petitioner through a real estate broker. A leave and license agreement dated 27 April 2017 was executed between Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 granting license in respect of the premises for the period from 1 May 2017 to 30 April 2019 on payment of monthly license fee of Rs. 40,000/- per month in addition to security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. As per the agreement dated 27 April 2017, the licensee was to use the premises for residential purpose. After expiry of the first license agreement, Petitioner and Respondent No.3 entered into three subsequent license agreements for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021. The last license agreement was executed on 5 May 2021 for the period from 1 May 2021 to 1 April 2022. According to Petitioner, even the last License Agreement dated 5 May 2021 granted license for use of the premises for residential purpose only. According to Petitioner, Respondent No.3 did not comply with the terms of the licens