IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12163 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38563 OF 2025 Jairam S. Mulchandani Through POA Priti Jairam Mulchandani …Petitioner Versus Stanley Dsouza …Respondent Mr. Manoj Mhatre a/w. Mr. Vasant P. Rainade, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Shailesh R. Gawande, for the Respondent. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

PRONOUNCED ON: 20 JANUARY 2026 UPLOADED ON: 01 FEBRUARY 2026 JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Mhatre, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Gawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the order dated 23^rd December 2024 passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Revision No.746 of

2020 filed under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. By the impugned order, the Additional Divisional Commissioner by setting aside the order dated 25^th June 2024 passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Case No.47 of 2012 has directed the present Petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the subject premises bearing Room No.34, AQS Mansion, behind Seaview Apartment, Chimbai Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 to the Respondent and further directed payment of double license fee of Rs.6,000/- per month from 28^th May 2018 till vacant possession of the said premises is delivered to the Applicant and directed that Rs.6,000/- per month rent charges from 11^th June 2012 till delivery of possession of the subject premises be paid to the Respondent.

3. It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has not been served in said Revision No.746 of 2024 and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. He further submits that in fact, the Petitioner purchased the subject premises and therefore, the Petitioner is the owner of the subject premises.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Gawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the subject premises has been given on leave and license basis. The Leave and License Agreement was executed on 28^th July 2011, registered on 29^th July 2011 and the period of the same was 11^th July 2011 to 10^th June 2012. It is specifically stated in the Leave and License Agreement that the Respondent-Licensor is the owner of the subject premises. Learned Counsel submitted that the said premises has been given on leave and license basis for residential purpose and the agreed license fees is Rs.3,000/- per month and security deposit is Rs.2,00,000/-. He submits that Leave and License Agreement is registered document therefore, no evidence can be led contrary to the terms and conditions of the leave and license in view of explanation (b)

to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

5. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out certain factual aspects. Admittedly, the Petitioner in capacity as Licensee and the Respondent in capacity as Licensor executed Leave and License Agreement on 28^th July 2011. Admittedly, the said Leave and License Agreement is registered on 29^th July 2011. The signature on the said Leave and License Agreement is accepted. By the said Leave and License Agreement, the premises are given for residential purpose. It is specifically recorded in the said Agreement that the Respondent/Licensor is the owner of the subject premises.

6. In view of above admitted position, it is required to note, Explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which specifies that an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. As per the settled legal position, Leave and License Agreement is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein and no other evidence can be led inconsistent with the said facts by either of the parties and is co