(25)-WP-7934 & 8137-22.doc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.7934 OF 2022

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.8137 OF 2022

Priti Dhananjay Shah

..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

..Respondents

Mr. Piyush M. Shah a/w Dishang J. Shah & Chirag M.

Unadkat, for the Petitioner in both Petitions.

Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.

Mr. Sunil Chaturvedi i/by K. V. Chheda & Co., for the

Respondent Nos.4 & 5.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 7^th JULY, 2022

P.C.

1.

Based on leave and licence agreement dated 14^th

December, 2018, proceedings under Section 24 of the

Maharashtra Rent Control Act were taken out by the

respondent/licensor which were answered against the

petitioner. An appeal before the Konkan Division also came

to be dismissed which was proceeded with an order of

refusal to grant leave to defend under Section 43 of the

said Act.

2.

In execution, since the petitioner claimed to be

threatened with execution of eviction warrant, I am

BGP.

1 of 5

BALAJI

GOVINDRAO

PANCHAL

Digitally

signed by

BALAJI

GOVINDRAO

PANCHAL

Date:

2022.07.11

09:46:20

+0530

(25)-WP-7934 & 8137-22.doc.

informed that an undertaking is given by the petitioner

that he shall be vacating both these flats i.e. Flat Nos.701

and 702 which are subject matter of both these petitions

respectively by 31^st July, 2022.

3.

In this background, while assailing the orders

passed by both the Courts below Mr. Shah would urge that

at the behest of petitioner a suit for specific performance is

pending before this Court. He would urge that though this

was oral agreement of purchase of both flats so as to avoid

further complications a proforma loan agreement was

entered into with the father of plaintiff in relation to both

the properties. The loan agreement though speaks of

payment of amount of Rs.40,00,000/-, however, the said

amount was towards advance/part consideration to be

received by the respondent/plaintiff. He would further urge

that even if the period of leave and licence was to expire

on 14^th January, 2001, the petitioner remained in

possession of both these flats by virtue of permissive

possession under the oral agreement of sale as referred

above. In the aforesaid background, according to him,

even if this Court vide order dated 5^th October, 2021 has

permitted the respondent/plaintiff to move for eviction of

the petitioner in accordance with law, the proceedings

under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Act were not

maintainable.

BGP.

2 of 5

(25)-WP-7934 & 8137-22.doc.

4.

His contentions are, out of amount of

Rs.66,00,000/- which is outstanding towards arrears of

licence fees, already amount of Rs.33,00,000/- is deposited

in addition to TDS of Rs.13,00,000/- towards rent paid to

the respondent. He would further claim that as against

leave and licence agreement Rs.10,00,000/- each were

deposited with the respondent towards security deposit.

As such, it is claimed that already an amount of

Rs.66,00,000/- towards the dues recoverable as licence

fees is secured. In this background, his contentions are,

the Court below committed an error in awarding

accommodation charges double the licence fees which this

Court must appreciate and reduce. He volunteers to pay

accommodation charges on the licence fees.

5.

The prayer is opposed on the ground that the

amount of Rs.40,00,000/- is already paid to the petitioner

by the father of the respondent in response to the

Negotiable Instruments Act proceedings.

6.

I have appreciated the aforesaid submissions.

7.

The fact that the proceedings under Section 24

of the Act are maintainable as regards eviction of the

petitioner in the light of the order of this Court dated 5^th

October, 2021 passed in Suit No.49 of 2