2024:BHC-AUG:13624 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1432 OF 2024

1. Sudha Rajendra Mahajan age 57 years, Occ. Household.

2. Subham Rajendra Mahajan, age 24 years, Occ. Service.

3. Shilpa Rajendra Mahajan, age 33 years, Occ. Household.

All R/o Municipal Council House no.167, Ram Mandir Ward, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

Petitioners.

(ori opponents.)

VERSUS

1. Vikas Narayan Patil age 69 years, Occ. Retired, Through His Power of Attorney, Smt. Tilottama Vikas Patil age 60 yrs, Occ. Household, Both R/o A-201, Acro Police, Opposite HDFC Bank, Thatte Nagar, College Road, Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik.

2. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

3. The Competent Authority, Rent Control Act, Nashik Division, Nashik.

Respondents.

...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Sawant Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar AGP for Respondents no.2 and 3 : Mr. S.N. Kendre ...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

Dated : 08^th July, 2024 JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties at admission stage. 2. Petitioners (original opponents) have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik in Rent Revision Application No.538 of 2023 by which the order dated 26.5.2023 passed by the Competent Authority in Summary Application No.7 of 2012 has been confirmed, directing eviction of petitioners from suit house property.

3. Respondent/(original applicant) herein approached the competent authority under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 claiming relief of recovery of possession and damages double the rate of fees. Respondent contends that he is the owner of house property situated at ground floor on Survey No.37/3, plot no.27 of Gurukul Housing Society. On 7.10.2003 a ‘leave in license agreement, was executed in favour of late Rajendra Mahajan for the period of 11 months commencing from 7.10.2003 to 7.9.2004. The agreed rent was fixed at Rs.1,400/- per month which was regularly paid till expiry of the licence period. However, license premises was not vacated as agreed.

Prior to execution of the leave and licence agreement, the suit house was given to Raymond Woollen Mill on leave and licence basis. Rajendra Mahajan, being employee of said company, was occupying the premises. However, after dis-continuation of licence agreement with Raymond Woollen Mill, Rajendra Mahajan was put into possession on the basis of independent licence agreement dated 7.10.2003 between respondent and Rajendra Mahajan. After death of Rajendra Mahajan, his wife and daughters (petitioners) continued in possession of the suit house. (Parties hereinafter are referred to as per their original status.)

4. The applicant had issued a legal notice dated 2.8.2004 to Rajendra Mahajan asking him to vacate premises. He replied said notice through advocate V.K. Patil on 13.8.2004. After death of Rajendra Mahajan, another notice was issued on 23.01.2012 calling upon legal heirs of Rajendra Mahajan (petitioners) to vacate the premises and pay arrears of licence fees. However, contents of said notice were refuted by the opponents. Consequently, proceeding under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (for short referred to as ‘Rent Act’) was filed. The opponents were granted leave to defend. Consequently, they filed written statement. Opponents came with a case that the licence agreement is a forged document. Even, they denied the notice dated 2.8.2004 alleged to have been served upon late Rajendra Mahajan. They are coming with a specific case that they are monthly tenants on the suit house since 1989. The agreed rent was fixed @ Rs.700 p.m. which is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- p.m. as per English Calender. The applicant is not issuing rent receipts. Opponents are paying Municipal Taxes and Electricity bills as per the Meter installed by the Raymond Woollen Mill.

5. Competent A