SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1844

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Madhav J. Jamdar, J
Mrs. Alpana Sanjay Kolhatkar – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Vijay Kumar Amrut Gone – Respondent
Writ Petition No.11046 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Ms. Priyanka Chavan
For the Respondents: Dr. Suneet Gupta, Ms. Rutuparna Samudre

An agreement of licence in writing under Maharashtra Rent Control Act serves as conclusive evidence, barring contradictory claims unless proven otherwise.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24 - Leave and Licence Agreement - Petitioners challenged the impugned order setting aside their eviction order, contending that the agreement with respondents is conclusive evidence under explanation (b) of Section 24, prohibiting contradictory evidence - Both parties allowed to adduce oral and documentary evidence - Court ruled petitioners, as owners, must be reinstated, emphasizing the importance of formalities in property transfer and the significance of registered agreements. (Paras 1, 10, 24, 36)

Table of Content
1. challenge to eviction order (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. factual circumstances of the case (Para 5 , 6)
3. parties' legal contentions (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's analysis and legal standards (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. final order and directions (Para 36 , 37)

"O R D E R

1. Revision Application is partly allowed.

2. The order of Competent Authority Konkan Division in case No.96 of 2012 dated 31.05.2014 is set aside.

3. The case is remanded back to the Competent Authority for fresh disposal after allowing both the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence and then to pass final order as per law.

4. Parties be informed accordingly."

(Emphasis added)

5. At the outset, it is to be noted that when the finalisation of draft of this judgment is at final stage, the Registry of the Bombay High Court placed a Letter dated 13th December 2023 of Dr. Suneet Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner before me stating that although the order is pronounced on 7th August 2023, the same is not published yet.

In the said letter, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made a request to place the Writ Petition for fresh hearing before a different Bench. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

"(i) Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar [(2001) 7 SCC 319]

(ii) Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020),

(iii) Indrajeet Yadav Vs. Avdhesh Singh @ Chhunnu Singh and Anr. [(2022 Live Law (SC) 386)]

(iv) Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai Vs. State of U.P. [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 448] "

In all the above matters, the High Court has reserved the Judgment or pronounced only operative order. However, it is to be noted that this is not a case where the Judgment is Reserved. The same was dictated in open Court on 26th July 2023, 27th July 2023, 31st July 2023 and on 7th August 2023. In fact, I was suffering from a severe cough on 31st July 2023 and therefore after partly dictating the Order in open Court, further part was dictated in Chamber on 31st July 2023 in the presence of the learned Advocates of both parties. On 31st July 2023, Ms. Chavan and Ms. Samudre, the respective learned Advocates were present in the Chamber. In fact, as due to severe cough, I was experiencing difficulties in dictating the Order, both the learned Advocates requested to stop the dictation. As I was not feeling well on 31st July 2023, I took leave for the second session and thereafter from 1st August 2023 till 3rd August 2023, I could not attend the Court and was not available for judicial work due to my illness. Thereafter the remaining Order was dictated on 7th August 2023 and the dictation was completed on that date. In fact, Dr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner prayed for a stay of this order and the same was granted.

As far as my current assignment is concerned, the same inter alia includes: Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Maharashtra Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA), Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, , Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 etc..

As the cases placed before me inter alia are concerning disqualification of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, orders of eviction passed under Slum Act/ passed under Public Premises Eviction Act, matters concerning termination / reinstatement of teachers, orders concerning Senior Citizens etc. all these matters are required to be heard urgently. Therefore, I am sitting in Court for a considerable time after Court working hours i.e. upto 2-3 hours after Court working hou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top