The Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act has jurisdiction to award and enforce damages against a licensee for overstaying, and delays in execution should be minimized to uphold the rights of decree holders.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This Appeal is directed against Judgment and Order dated 19 December 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: A.S. Oka, J, as His Lordship then was) of this Court making notice No. 1099 of 2009 absolute and allowing the execution of the order dated 27 December 2004 of the Competent Authority passed under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (Rent Act) inter alia awarding damages against the Appellant herein.

3. In effect, the Appellant, who is, in a sense, a judgment debtor has, from 2004 onwards, has substantially succeeded in frustrating the execution of the order dated 27 December 2004 which, entirely consistent with the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Rent Act has directed the Appellant-Licensee to pay damages at double the rate of license the fee or charge of premises fixed under the agreement of license.

4. Mr Mehta, at the outset, submitted that the amount in relation to which these execution proceedings are pending is hardly Rs. three to four lakhs. He submitted that the decree holders have already withdrawn some amount against the bank guarantee. He further submitted that the Appellant had issued cheques to pay this amount, but they were dishonoured. He submitted that ultimately, the Appellant has not only paid the amount reflected on the cheques but also a matching amount in the criminal prosecution. He submitted, therefore, that this was a fit case in which some settlement could be explored.

5. While we are not opposed to any settlement, it was noted that several attempts had been made, all of which failed. The parties have been litigating for years. Even the amounts received by the decree holders, though seemingly small to the Appellant here, are against a bank guarantee they must have been servicing all these years. This is an appeal from 2010, so we saw no point in further postponing the hearing of this appeal.

6. In Satyawati vs. Rajender Singh & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 491, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there should not be an unreasonable delay in the execution of a decree because if the decree holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of his success by getting the decree executed, the entire effort of a successful litigant would be in vain. The Court has referred to several decisions which hold that judgment debtors do not abuse the process of the Court in a manner that makes the Courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors who have obtained decrees in accordance with their rights. The Court also noted the proverbial observation by the Privy Council that the difficulty of a litigant in India commences after he obtains adecree. This appears to be one such case. The Appellant is determined to ensure that the decree holder (the original decree holder having already expired) does not obtain the fruits of the decree.

7. The facts and circumstances which have led to the institution of this Appeal are clear from the learned Single Judge’s impugned order dated 19 December 2009. Therefore, they are not repeated in this judgment and order.

8. Mr Mehta contended that the Competent Authority under the Rent Act has jurisdiction to order the eviction of