Written Leave & License Agreement is 'Conclusive Evidence'; Licensee Cannot Claim Contrary Oral Agreement to Defend Eviction: Bombay High Court - 2025-07-03

Written Agreement is Conclusive, Bars Contrary Defense in Eviction: Bombay HC

Mumbai: In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of eviction proceedings under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the Bombay High Court has held that a written leave and license agreement is "conclusive evidence" of the facts stated therein. The court, presided over by Justice Madhav J.Jamdar , ruled that a licensee cannot introduce contrary evidence, such as an alleged oral agreement to sell the property, to contest an eviction application filed by the landlord after the license period has expired.

The court quashed an order by the Additional Divisional Commissioner that had granted a licensee 'leave to defend' and remanded the matter for a full trial. Restoring the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority, the High Court emphasized that the special summary procedure under the Act is designed for speedy recovery of possession and cannot be derailed by defenses that contradict the written agreement.

Case Background

The case, Ram Shankar Sinha vs Ritesh V. Patel & Anr. , involved a landlord (Petitioner) who had executed a leave and license agreement with the respondents for a residential flat for a period of 24 months, from June 16, 2018, to June 15, 2020. After the license expired, the licensee failed to vacate the premises.

The landlord initiated eviction proceedings before the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The Competent Authority, on August 9, 2024, rejected the licensee's application for leave to defend and passed an eviction order. However, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, in a revision application, set aside this order on February 14, 2025, finding that the licensee's claims of a subsequent oral agreement to sell the property warranted a full trial. This prompted the landlord to file a writ petition in the High Court.

Arguments in Court

The Landlord's (Petitioner's) Stance: The petitioner argued that Explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Act makes a written license agreement conclusive evidence of its contents. This special rule of evidence prevents the court from looking into extraneous claims, like an oral agreement, that contradict the written terms. The licensee's defense was a mere tactic to delay eviction.

The Licensee's (Respondent's) Defense: The respondent contended that after the license expired, the parties negotiated the sale of the property, creating a new relationship. They claimed an oral agreement for sale was reached and a civil suit for specific performance was already pending. They argued this created a triable issue, rightfully entitling them to defend the eviction suit.

Court's Decisive Interpretation

Justice Jamdar undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory scheme under Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, which provides for summary disposal of eviction applications. The court reiterated the legislative intent behind these provisions: to provide a speedy remedy for landlords and encourage them to give their properties on license without fear of protracted litigation.

The judgment highlighted the critical role of Explanation (b) to Section 24 , which states: "an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein."

The court observed that this provision acts as a special rule of evidence, effectively shutting out any other evidence that contradicts the facts mentioned in the written agreement.

"Once an execution of the agreement of leave and licence is not disputed before the Competent Authority... it 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," the court noted, citing established precedents.

The High Court clarified that a Competent Authority, while deciding an application for 'leave to defend', is bound by this rule. It cannot grant leave based on a "moonshine defense" that directly contradicts the conclusive evidence of the written agreement. The court distinguished the licensee's claim, stating:

"The alleged claim of the oral agreement can not be looked into by the Competent Authority... The remedies exercisable in respect of two independent rights are also altogether distinct."

The court also addressed the issue of non-registration of the agreement under Section 55 of the Act, holding that while non-registration has consequences, it does not invalidate the document or nullify the "conclusive evidence" clause of Section 24 for eviction proceedings concerning residential premises.

Final Order and Implications

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order and restoring the eviction decree passed by the Competent Authority.

This judgment reinforces the strength of written leave and license agreements in Maharashtra and upholds the efficacy of the summary eviction procedure. It serves as a clear message that licensees cannot use unsubstantiated claims of subsequent oral agreements to thwart a landlord's right to speedy repossession of their property after the license term ends.