A residential license agreement's terms govern usage, and partial commercial use does not nullify eviction rights under statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Revision Application No. 132 of 2009 under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (‘MRC Act’ for short). By the said impugned order, the revision application filed by the Respondent is allowed thereby setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the Competent Authority Rent Act, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Case No. 38 of 2008 under Section 24 of MRC Act. By the impugned order, the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority has been set aside.

2. Few facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:

2.a) The Petitioner is a licensor and Respondent is a licensee in respect of suit flat which is Flat No. 105, Matruchhaya building No. 42, MHADA Complex, Near Oshiwara Police Station, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400012. Admittedly, the Petitioner is owner of the suit flat. The Respondent is incorporated company represented by its Director - Mr. Yasin Mohammed (party in person). The Petitioner is a film director and producer. The Respondent is also a film producer.

2.b) The Petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the MRC Act contending inter alia as under. That the Respondent was inducted as licensee in the suit flat under registered leave and license agreement dated 05.01.2007 for a period of 22 months for residential use only. That the Respondent committed breach of the terms and conditions of leave and license agreement and therefore, the Petitioner terminated the agreement by notice/writing dated 04.05.2008. That the Respondent did not comply and instead of vacating suit flat, filed Suit No. 1110/2008 in the City Civil Court in Mumbai alleging that the Petitioner agreed to transfer the suit flat in favour of Respondent. That the City Civil Court did not grant any ad-interim relief and the main relief sought by the Respondent was only to restrain the Petitioner from dispossessing the Respondent from suit flat without following due process of law. That Petitioner never agreed to transfer the suit flat. He prayed for recovery of possession as well as compensation.

2.c) The Respondent appeared before the Competent Authority and was granted leave to file written statement. The Respondent contended inter alia as under. The Respondent admitted that the Petitioner is owner of the suit flat and also admitted issuance of termination notice dated 04.05.2008. That the Petitioner has a bad reputation in the film industry. That several cases are pending against the Petitioner. That earlier leave and license agreement was executed on 05.02.2006 and since then Respondent is in possession. That after execution of first leave and license agreement, the Petitioner had approached the Respondent with a request to give him opportunity to direct a film. That Respondent agreed to work with the Petitioner and for production of the film called “Lara” and contract was signed on 20.02.2006 between the Petitioner and Respondent. That thereafter the leave and license agreement dated 05.01.2007 was executed for use of suit flat as commercial purpose. That apart from suit in the City Civil Court, there are Arbitration Proceedings pending between the parties as well as criminal complaints are filed against the Petitioner. That due to Petitioner’s bad reputation in the market, the Respondent was prevented from releasing its film which resulted in loss to the Respondent. That under the film production contract dated 20.02.2006, the Respondent is having lien/charge over suit