Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6646
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N. J. JAMADAR, J
Mayur Nitin Nagonkar – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner, Kokan Division – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13166 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saurish Shetye, Aishwarya Tambe, Amit Tungare
For the Respondents: Hamid Mulla, Bharat G. Thorat, Ganesh Singh
Eviction of a licensee is justified under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act when the licensee remains post-expiry of the license, regardless of claims of alternate arrangements.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24 - Eviction of licensee after expiry of license term - Competent Authority's jurisdiction - Summary disposal of applications filed for eviction under Section 24 emphasizes the limitations on the authority to question the validity of the license agreement - Petitioner cannot resist eviction by alleging a different jural relationship based on undetermined claims against other parties. (Paras 1, 10, 13)
(B) Eviction - Nature of possession - Petitioner was deemed a licensee under successive Leave and Licence Agreements and continued occupying the premise beyond the expiry of the license, thus justifying the direction for eviction and financial compensation for unlawful possession. (Paras 3-5, 25)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner booked flats in a project but faced issues with possession; subsequent claim against the landlord resulted in eviction orders based on failed payments noted in license agreements.
Findings of Court:
The Competent Authority rightly determined the need for eviction based on expired agreements despite claims from the petitioner regarding alternative arrangements not legally supported under the Rent Act.
Issues: Whether the eviction was justified given the claims of different relationships; and whether the Competent Authority could consider the surrounding transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed that the existence of formal license agreements precluded alternative claims by the licensee and upheld the decisions of prior authorities, emphasizing the summary nature of Judicial proceedings under the Rent Act.
Result: Petition dismissed, costs awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rule made returnable for final hearing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts leading to eviction claim under the maharashtra rent act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments presented regarding landlord obligations and contractual arrangements. (Para 9) |
| 4. court's evaluation of statutory authority and jurisdiction under the rent act. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. conclusively affirming authority of eviction based on license agreements. (Para 21 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. final decision rendered to dismiss the petition. (Para 26 , 27) |
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 4th JULY 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2025 JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , the Petitioner takes exception to a judgment and order dated 10th August 2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, in Revision Application No. 174 of 2022 whereby the said Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed by affirming an order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 (“the Rent Act 1999”).
3. The background facts leading to this Petition can be summarised as under:
3.1 The Petitioner claimed to have booked two flats, i.e. Flat Nos. 906 and 907 in a project “Mohan Mansion”, then being developed by M/s Monish Builders, of which Kishor Advani-Respondent No. 5 was the authorized representative. The Petitioner had parted with consideration. An Agreement for Sale came to be executed in respect of Flat No. 906 on 23rd July 2015. An allotment letter was issued in respect of Flat No. 907. However, the Respondent No.5 failed to deliver the possession of Flat No. 906, as agreed, and execute an Agreement for Sale in respect of Flat No. 907.
3.2 On account of the failure on the part of the Respondent No. 5, the Petitioner started to demand the refund of the part consideration paid by the Petitioner. At that stage, the Petitioner asserts, the Respondent No. 5 introduced the Petitioner to Nisha More (R3) and her husband. The couple agreed to give their Flat i.e., Flat No. 101, A Wing, in the same project to the Petitioner on the condition that the Respondent No. 5 would pay the licence fee to Respondent No.3. Accordingly, a Leave and Licence Agreement came to be executed on 10th August 2016. The term of licence was two years. The licence fee was fixed as Rs.25,000/- per month security deposit of Rs.50,0000/- was also paid.
3.3 The Petitioner asserts, the Leave and Licence Agreement came to be renewed on multiple occasions. The last Agreement was executed on 20th February 2020 on the same terms and conditions, for the term commencing from 15th April 2020 to 14th March 2021.
3.4 The Petitioner claimed that the licence fee was paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No.3 through Kishor Advani (R5), yet, the Respondent No. 3 falsely claimed that the Petitioner was in arrears of licence fee from the month of September 2020, and addressed a notice dated 7th December 2020, thereby terminating the licence and calling upon the Petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the subject premises.
3.5 It is the claim of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 5 had undertaken to pay the licence fee and had, in fact, paid the licence fee to the Respondent No.3. The latter was aware of the nature of the transaction between the parties and had agreed to give the premises on licence on the condition that the licence fee would be paid by the Respondent No.5. Yet, the Respondent No.3 raised the dispute.
3.6 Eventually, the Respondent No.3 filed an Application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act 1999, being Eviction Application No. 106 of 2021. The Petitioner filed an Application for leave to defend.
3.7 By an order dated 23rd February 2022, the Competent Authority declined to grant the leave to defend. On the very day, by a separate judgment and order, the Com
