Under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, a written leave and licence agreement is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, prohibiting contradictory evidence.

JUDGMENT:

1.Heard Mr. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Makwana, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2.By the present Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 14^th February 2025 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Revision Application No.747/2024. By the impugned order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, order dated 9^th August 2024 passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Eviction Application No.247 of 2023 is set aside and the said Eviction Application is remanded back to the Competent Authority for trial and directing that order be passed after leading evidence by both the parties.

3. The Competent Authority by order dated 9^th August 2024 rejected Application bearing Exhibit-11 filed in Eviction Application No.247 of 2023 seeking leave to defend filed by the Respondent and also Application bearing Exhibit-12 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for rejection of the Eviction Application. Consequently the Competent Authority passed eviction order on 9^th August 2024.

4.It is the main submission of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that in view of Explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“Maharashtra Rent Act”) no other evidence which is contrary to the terms and conditions of written leave and license agreement can be led and the said terms are conclusive of the facts stated therein. He relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of Sanath Kumar Sanjib Das v. Fernandes Anthony John & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2135 and also judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of Ramesh Sidde Gawda v. Vivek Deendayal Agarwal , [2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6262] and therefore submits that the Additional Commissioner Konkan Division, Mumbai has passed the order which is contrary to the settled legal position and therefore the same is required to be quashed and set aside and order passed by the Competent Authority is required to be restored.

5.On the other hand Mr. Makwana, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the Respondents are in possession of the premises since 2011. The last leave and license agreement was executed on 16^th June 2018 and the same expired by efflux of time on 15^th June 2020. He states that the Application is filed on 9^th November 2023. He states that after the said period of leave and license agreement comes to an end, the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents is no more of licensor and licensees and therefore the Application is not maintainable. He further submits that there is material on record to show that parties negotiated the sale of subject premises and price was also fixed subsequently after the leave and license agreement. He submits that Civil Suit seeking specific performance of said oral agreement is pending. He therefore submitted that no interference in the impugned order is warranted.

6.The issues involved in this Writ Petition are also involved in the decision of this Court in the case of Alpana Sanjay Kolhatkar & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Amrut Gone & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No.11046 of 2019 decided on 7^th August 2023. In said case inter alia fol