Competent Authority under Section 24 MRC Act limits eviction inquiry to leave and license agreement; extraneous documents claiming renovation costs as security deposits cannot defeat summary eviction post license expiry; licensee risks expenditures without retention rights.

JUDGMENT:

1) By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner assails the order dated 6 June 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) dismissing the Revision Application preferred by him and confirming the Order dated 20 March 2025 passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court under Section 24 of the MRC Act in Eviction Application No. 240 of 2024. The Competent Authority has directed the Petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the licensed premises with further direction for payment of damages at the rate of Rs.2,60,000/- per month (double the license fees) from 1 June 2024 till handing over possession of the premises after appropriating the amount of security deposit .

2) Flat No. 143, B-Wing, 14th floor, Heera Panna CHS, Tulsiwadi, Mumbai are the ‘licensed premises’. Respondent is the owner of the licensed premises. Respondent granted license in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the licensed premises vide registered leave and license Agreement dated 2 June 2021. The tenure of license was for a period of 36 months from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2024. The license fees agreed under the leave and license agreement was Rs.1,30,000/- per month. The Petitioner also paid refundable security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-to the Respondent. This is how Petitioner entered the licensed premises w.e.f. 1 June 2021.

3) It is the case of the Petitioner that the licensed premises required additional modifications and refurbishments to make the same habitable for residential purposes and that it was agreed that the Petitioner would carry out repairs, modifications, refurbishments and renovations at his cost to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs, which amount would be eventually borne by the Respondent. Petitioner claims that since the licensor did not have THE financial capacity to bear the expenditure required for renovation of the flat, it was agreed that the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs shall be treated as security deposit in addition to security deposit paid under the leave and license agreement. Petitioner claimed that he protested about non-reflection of stipulations regarding security deposit of Rs.50 lakhs in the license agreement and that the Respondent assured the Petitioner that the said arrangement would be recorded by way of a separate document. Petitioner relies on MOU, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit allegedly executed on 4 June 2021. Petitioner claims to have carried out repairs, modifications, refurbishments and renovations in the flat and claims to have spent an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs for the said purpose. The period of license came to an end on 31 May 2024 and the Petitioner claims that he demanded refund of security deposit of Rs.53 lakhs and showed willingness to vacate the licensed premises. Petitioner claims that Respondent was in financial difficulties and expressed inability to refund the security deposit of Rs.53 lakhs and this is how Petitioner continues to occupy the licensed premises.

4) In the above background, Respondent filed Eviction Application No.240 of 2024 before the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Konkan Division, Mumbai for recovery of possession of the licensed premises. Petitioner was served