Dismissed

Veridical Hospitality v. Additional Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Jan 2024WP/15222/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority and Additional Commissioner under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The High Court held that flats let for corporate residential accommodation of clients are 'residential' in nature, validating the eviction order despite the petitioner's commercial business activities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; no order as to costs; interim orders vacated.

Veridical Hospitality Vs Additional Commissioner and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 15222 OF 2022

¶4

Veridical Hospitality
Through its Properietor
Ms. Anindita Chatterjee
Flat No. 901, Panchsmruti,
Panch Shrishti Complex,
Chandivali Farm Road,
Off Hiranandani Gardens,
Powai, Mumbai-400 072
 V/s.
1. Additional Commissioner
State of Maharashtra, Konkan Division,
15, Madam Cama Road, Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400032.

¶5

…Petitioner.

¶6

2. The Competent Authority (Rent Act)
5th Floor, MHADA Building,
3R4X+32P Gruhnirman Bhavan,
Gandhi Nagar, Bandra East,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400051.
3. Ms. Radha Prabhas Pande nee
Mrs. Radha Pande Padwal
Residing at 2801, BLISS, City of Joy,
J. S. Dosa Road, Near Lok Everest Society,
Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080. …Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 15224 OF 2022

¶9

Veridical Hospitality
Through its Properietor
Ms. Anindita Chatterjee
Flat No. 901, Panchsmruti,
Panch Shrishti Complex,

¶10

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 1 of 23

¶11

…Petitioner.

¶12

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶13

Chandivali Farm Road,
Off Hiranandani Gardens,
Powar, Mumbai-400 072

¶14

 V/s.

¶15

1. Additional Commissioner
State of Maharashtra, Konkan Division,
15, Madam Cama Road, Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400032.

¶16

2. The Competent Authority (Rent Act)
5th Floor, MHADA Building,
3R4X+32P Gruhnirman Bhavan,
Gandhi Nagar, Bandra East,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400051.

¶17

3. Mr. Prabhas Umashankar Pande
Residing at Flat No. 1504/1505,
Panchmahal, Leela Mahal C. H.S. Ltd.
Chandivali, Nr. S. M. Shetty School,
Powai, Mumbai-400 072. …Respondents

¶18

Mr. Satish J. Agarwal with Mrs. Dhara Shah, Advocates for Petitioners in
both writ petitions.

¶19

Mr. Atul Vanarase, AGP for Respondent No.1 an 2 in both writ petitions.
Mr. Rakesh Misar with Mr. Rahul Pujari, Advocates for Respondent No. 3
in both writ petitions.

¶20

CORAM :ABHAY AHUJA, J.
RESERVED ON: 26th JULY, 2023
PRONOUNCED ON:2nd JANUARY, 2024

¶21

JUDGMENT:-

¶22

1. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the

¶23

Constitution of India, impugning the orders of the Revisional Authority

¶24

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 2 of 23

¶25

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶26

dated 13th July, 2022 and by the Competent Authority dated 20th
December, 2021.

¶27

2.The Respondent No. 3 is the original applicant before the
Respondent No. 2, who had filed the applications being eviction
applications no. 90 of 2021 and 89 of 2021 respectively under Section 24
of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (the “said Act”) to recover the
vacant and peaceful possession of Flats No. 605 and 604 (the “said flats”)
on the 6th floor, each admeasuring 670 square feet, Panchsmruti CHS Ltd.,
Building No.7, Panchshrishti Complex, Near S. M. Shetty School,
Chandivali, Mumbai-400 072 from the Petitioner. That the eviction
applications were allowed by orders dated 20th December, 2021 passed by
Respondent No.2 on the ground that Petitioners were in possession of the
said flats after the termination of the leave and license agreement and
hence, the Respondent No. 3 is entitled to arrears of license fee as per the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the said Act upto 22nd November, 2021, i.e.
the date on which the Petitioner has handed over possession of the said
flats.

¶28

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 3 of 23

¶29

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶30

3. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Competent Authority, the
Petitioner filed Revision Applications before the Additional Commissioner,
Konkan Division, however, the Additional Commissioner
dismissed/rejected the Applications and confirmed the orders of the
Competent Authority. Being aggrieved by the said rejections the Petitioner
is before this Court in the two petitions.

¶31

4. It is not in dispute that the said flats had initially been given to the
Petitioner for the purpose of corporate residential accommodation for a
period of three years and accordingly, the leave and licence agreement
expired on 14th June, 2020. That, after the expiry of the said leave and
licence agreement a fresh leave and licence agreement commenced from
15th June, 2021 ending 14th June, 2022. Licence fees was fixed and every
12 months there was an increase in the amounts with interest free
refundable security deposits. That there was also a lock-in period for the
first twelve months i.e. 15th June, 2019 ending on 14th June, 2020, during
which period neither party could terminate the agreement. The Petitioner
failed to pay licence fee from the month of April, 2020 and by email dated
22nd June, 2020. The Plaintiff informed the Respondent No.3 that paying
rents was stressful for her but she was ready to pay maintenance charges
This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 4 of 23

¶32

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶33

for the society. The Respondent No.3 rejected complete waiver of the
licence fee but on humanitarian grounds proposed to reduce licence fee by
10% for 3 month i.e. April 2020 to June 2020.

¶34

5.However, the Petitioner, by email dated 27th June, 2020, expressed
her inability to continue the agreement and payment of licence fee. The
Respondent No.3, by email dated 28th June, 2020, sought a date when the
Petitioner actually wanted to hand over possession of the said flats and
also submitted the details about the pending licence fee. The Respondent
No.3 through his accountant’s email dated 30th June, 2020 informed the
Petitioner that her email dated 27th June, 2020 did not mention the date
for handing over the possession and that she would consider the email
dated 27th June, 2020, as one month termination notice. The Petitioner by
email dated 5th July, 2020, informed that the society was not allowing the
guests into the society and hence she could not pay licence fee. The
Respondent No.3, addressed email dated 6th July, 2020 considering the
Petitioner’s email dated 27th June, 2020 as the termination notice and
called upon the Petitioner to hand over possession of the said flats on 26th
July, 2020. By email dated 13th July, 2020, the Respondent No.3, called
upon the Petitioner to hand over peaceful possession of the said flats on
This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 5 of 23

¶35

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶36

27th July, 2020. The Petitioner by email dated 19th July, 2020 submitted
that possession of the said flats would be handed upon refund of the
security deposits.

¶37

6.That, the Petitioner did not vacate the said flats after the
termination of the leave and licence agreement i.e. from 28th July, 2020 till
22nd November, 2021, when on the said date, during the pendency of the
application before the Competent Authority, the Advocate for the
Petitioner handed over the keys of the said flat to the Advocate for the
Respondent No.3 which were accepted by the Advocate for the
Respondent No.3. Accordingly, the Competent Authority on 20th December,
2021 directed the Petitioner to make payment of arrears of licence fee
under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 from 28th
July, 2020 to 22nd November, 2021 holding that the Respondent No.3 was
entitled for licence fee at the double rate for the said period and also that
the Respondent No.3 was at liberty to appropriate the security deposit, if
any, thereby rejecting the Application for leave to defend by the Petitioner.

¶38

7. That the Petitioner preferred a revision application against the order

¶39

dated 20th December, 2021 before Respondent No.1. That Respondents

¶40

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 6 of 23

¶41

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶42

No.3 appeared and filed their replies. On 13th July, 2022, Respondent
No.1, passed order rejecting the revision application and confirmed the
order dated 20th December, 2021 passed by Respondent No.2. That on 17th
September, 2022, Respondent No. 3 preferred execution applications no.
112 and 111 of 2022 respectively before Respondent No. 2. That the
Petitioner preferred a review against the order dated 13th July, 2022 before
Respondent No.1 and by an order dated 2nd November, 2022, the same
was rejected at admission stage as not maintainable and on 18th
November, 2022 the Petitioner preferred the present writ petitions.

¶43

8.The Petitioner has claimed that the said flats were given to her for
commercial activity. That as per the provision of Clause 1 of the leave and
license agreements dated 1st October, 2019 and 22nd August, 2019
respectively between Respondent No. 3 and the Petitioner, the said flats
were given to the Petitioner to use the said flats for corporate residential
accommodation for its clients/ business associates/representatives for a
period of 36 months commencing from 15th June, 2019 to 14th June, 2022.
That apart from the leave and licence agreement, the Respondent No.3,
has himself given a declaration to the society dated 29th June, 2016 by

¶44

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 7 of 23

¶45

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶46

signing undertaking form for utilization of the said flats for commercial
purpose and that the said premises are let out for commercial purpose.

¶47

9.During the period of lock down due to the pandemic situation in the
country where the society in which the said flats were situate restricted
the entry of outside people. The Petitioner made a request to the
Respondent indicating her readiness to make payment of society
maintenance bill in respect of the said flats against relaxation of the
monthly license fees, which was however, not agreed to by the Respondent
No.3. That Petitioner then decided to vacate the said flats and hand over

¶48

the same to Respondent No.3 due to restriction in the entry of the
customers of the Petitioner.

¶49

10.The Petitioner has submitted that the Respondent No.3 was not co-
operating with the Petitioner and neither returning the security deposit
and also compelling the Petitioner to pay license fees for the period under
lockdown which the Petitioner had disagreed.

¶50

11. The argument of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.3 is not
entitled to file the eviction petition under section 24 of the Rent Control

¶51

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 8 of 23

¶52

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶53

Act as the said flats have been let out for the commercial use and not for
residence and therefore, the Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to
entertain the eviction application.

¶54

12.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the following
decisions in support of his contentions:

¶55

(i) New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Sohan Lal Sachdev
(Dead)1

¶56

(ii) Darshansingh Indarsingh Sodh and Anr. Vs.Poddar
Education and Sports Trust Through Its Its Managing Trustee
Pawan Poddar and Anr.2

¶57

13.On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.3
that the said flats were given on license only for residential
accommodation. That during the subsistence of the above-mentioned
leave and license agreements, Respondent No. 3 has never issued any
consent/permitted the Petitioner to carry out any commercial activities
from the said flats. That the said flats are situated in residential co-
operative housing society, hence, also the said flats could not be given on
license for any commercial activities. That the Petitioner never informed
Respondent No.3 that she was running a commercial activity from a
residential premises. That the Petitioner has not produced any document

¶58

2 WP 8823 of 2016 dated 3^rd October, 2016

¶59

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 9 of 23

¶60

1 (2000) 2 SCC 494

¶61

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶62

showing that she has informed the Respondents no.3 that she is running a
commercial activity.

¶63

14.That the Petitioner has not mentioned whether she had taken
permission from the society or Municipal corporation of Greater Mumbai,
for a commercial activity. That Respondent No.3 has never proposed or
offered to convert the said flats to commercial premises and that as per
the provisions of Section 30 of the Rent Control Act, the landlord shall not
permit the commercial use of a residential premises. That as per
provisions explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Rent Control Act, the
agreement in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated
therein. In the said leave and license agreements, nowhere Respondent
No. 3 has authorised / permitted the Petitioner to use the said flats for a
commercial purposes. Hence, as per the registered agreements between
the parties, the intention of the parties was only for letting the said flats
for residential accommodation purpose. That Petitioner did not make the
payment of rent from April 2020 till the possession of the said flats were
handed over to the Respondent No. 3 on 22nd November, 2021. That since
June 2020, Respondent No.3 offered to the Petitioner to hand over the

¶64

keys, pay the outstanding amount and that accordingly the security

¶65

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 10 of 23

¶66

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶67

deposits would be refunded as per the Clause 3 of the leave and license
agreements, however, the Petitioner continued to remain in the possession
of the said flats till November, 2021.

¶68

15.It is submitted that as the registered agreements between the parties
are not disputed by the Petitioner and inspite of one month notice by the
Petitioner, she had not vacated the respective premises from April, 2020
till November, 2021, therefore, Respondent No.2 had rightly passed orders
dated 20th December, 2021 directing the Petitioner to make payment of
arrears of license fee and damages stated therein within 30 days. It is
further submitted that as the Petitioner failed to produce any document
showing the consent of Respondents No.3 for commercial activity during
the subsistence of agreements and on her admission that she was using
the said flats as residential accommodation for her business associates /
representatives, the Respondent No.1 has rightly rejected the revision of
the Petitioner.

¶69

16. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 has sought to distinguish the
decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and relied
upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Delhi

¶70

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 11 of 23

¶71

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶72

Municipal Council Vs. Sohan Lal Sachdev (Dead) (supra)and Nand
Kishore Vs. Yashpal Singh3in support of his contentions.

¶73

17.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered the
rival contentions.

¶74

18.The basic facts do not appear to be in dispute. The main ground of
challenge taken up by the Petitioner is that both the orders viz. orders date
20th December, 2021 passed by the Competent Authority and orders dated
13th July, 2022, passed by Additional Commissioner in Revision are
without jurisdiction, in as much as, Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999 clearly provides that an application to recover licensed
premises on the expiry of the term is to be in respect of premises given to
the licencee for residential purpose only and not for commercial purpose.

¶75

19.It is not in dispute that the said flats No.604 and 605 had been
taken on leave and license by the Petitioner from the Respondent No.3 to

¶76

use and occupy the said flats for temporary “Corporate Residence
Accommodation purpose” for the Petitioner’s client/business

¶77

associates/representatives. Recital (d), Clauses 10 (ii), (v) and 11 of the

¶78

3 (2009) 16 SCC 634

¶79

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 12 of 23

¶80

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶81

Leave and License Agreement which clearly suggest the residential

¶82

purpose, are usefully quoted as under :

¶83

d.The Licensor has agreed to grant a license to the
Licensee, to use and occupy the Licensed Premises for the
purpose of corporate residential accommodation by
Licensee’s client/business associates/representatives during
the term of the license on the terms and conditions
hereinafter contained.
10…….

¶84

(ii)It shall not transfer, assign, sub-let, mortgage or create,
lien or encumbrance or grant license or part with possession
of the Licensed Premises or any part thereof in favour of any
third party. Provided however nothing contained herein shall
be construed as preventing the Licensee from permitting its
employees/clients/Business associates/representatives, an
access to the Licensed Premises at all times and such
permission would not amount to breach by the Licensee of
any of the terms and conditions of this agreement. The
Licensed Premises are being taken on leave and License for
the temporary corporate residence accommodation purpose
of Licensee and its client/business associates/representatives.
(v)the occupants of the Licensed premises under this
agreement, shall use the Licensed Premises with proper care
and caution and as ordinary men of prudence would do and
in keeping withthe municipal rules and regulations and
other public laws also rules of the Housing Society.

¶85

11.Nothing herein contained shall be construed as
creating any right, title, interest, easement, tenancy or sub-
subtenancy in favour of the Licensee in or over or upon the
Licensed Premises or transferring any interest therein in
favour of the Licensee other than the license hereby created
in favour of the Licensee to use the Licensed Premises for the
residential purpose of its business activities and during the
subsistence of this License only.

¶86

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 13 of 23

¶87

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶88

20.A perusal of the abovesaid recital and clauses clearly indicates that
the said flats have been granted to the Petitioner for using them for
residential accommodation purposes of Petitioner’s clients, business
associates/representatives. The Petitioner has also referred to an
undertaking dated 29th June, 2016, to submit that by the said declaration
the Respondent No.3 has given the said flats for commercial purpose. I
have perused the said undertaking and note that contrary to the
submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner the undertaking clearly
records that the Flat No. 604 would be utilized only for residential
purpose and as service apartment to the Petitioner.

¶89

21. In the case of Automatic Electric Limited, Vadala Vs. Shardea V. Chitnis (supra) , this Court, while considering the provisions of section 13(A-2) of the erstwhile Bombay Rent Hotel Lodging Housing Control Act, 1947 which is pari materia to section 24 of the Rent Control Act, in a case where premises were given on leave licence basis to a Company for use by its officer s as rest house, while considering whether the premises were given for residence so as to give jurisdiction to the Competent Authority to decide the matter under Section 13(A-2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act,

¶90

observed that use of the licenced premises as rest house by its officers

¶91

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 14 of 23

¶92

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶93

cannot lead to the conclusion that the premises were given for nonresidential use even if they may be incidentally, holding meetings and keeping files. This Court held that the Petitioner, a corporate sole, act s through its officers and its officers may be discussing matters after visiting the factory but that does not mean that the premises were given for holding meetings or storing files. This Court interpreted the phrase “rest house” in a manner to mean “residence”. That the phrase “residence” cannot partake the character of mere casual occupation or lodger in a hotel. That phrase residence requires to be interpreted in a wider and broader manner and if the user does not strictly fall within one o f the other purpose s, other than residence as enumerated in Section 6, then it is construed as given for residence. That the Competent Authority was right in holding that the premises was licenced for residence. In the said case, it was contended that the premises were given for residence and not nonresidential or business purpose and the Competent Authority had rightly found it was given for residence. In this case also, it was the contention of the other side that using the premises as a rest house was for business purpose and not the residential purpose. That from a reading of the various clauses it was held that the intention of the parties was that the

¶94

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 15 of 23

¶95

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶96

premises were given on licence for residential purpose. Paragraph 32 of
the said decision is usefully quoted as under :-

¶97

32.I find there is much similarity as regards the various terms
of the licence deed and the terms contained in the lease deed
before the Apex Court in (1994) 2 SCC 10 (cited supra). Even in
our case, there is “clause 8. The licensees shall not during the
period of the licence make any structural alterations in the said
licensed premises without the written consent of the Licensor
but shall be at liberty to install fans, refrigerators and domestic
electric appliances which shall remain the property of the
Licensees and shall be removed by the Licensees on vacating the
said licensed premises,” which is similar to clause 11. Various
clauses and the articles mentioned in the schedule of the licence
deed clearly spell out the intention of the parties i.e. the
premises were given on licence for residential purpose. The
phrase ‘residence’ cannot partake the character of the mere
casual occupation or a lodger in a hotel. But here the company’s
officers stay in section 13-A2 of the Act. Considering the object
of introducing section 13-A2 in the enactment, as mentioned
above, it is amply clear that the phrase ‘residence’ requires to be
interpreted in a wider and broader manner. If the user does not
strictly fall within any one of the other purposes, other than
residence, as enumerated in section 6 of the Act, then it is to be
construed as given for residence. In the present case, it cannot
be said that the premises were given to the petitioner for
education, business, trade or storage. Hence the Competent
Authority was right in holding that the premises were licenced
for residence.

¶98

22.In my view, therefore, the said decision assists the case of the
Respondent No.3; that it is the purpose for which the premises has been
let out is what is pertinent.

¶99

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 16 of 23

¶100

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶101

23.Let us now consider Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control

¶102

Act, 1999, which is applicable to the case at hand. The said Section is
usefully quoted as under :-

¶103

24. Landlord entitled to recover possession of premises given on
licence on expiry.

¶104

(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, licensee
in possession or occupation of premises givento him on licence
for residenceshall deliver possession of such premises to the
landlord on expiry of the period of licence; and on the failure of
the licensee to so deliver the possession of the licensed
premises, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of
such premises from a licensee, on the expiry of the period of
licence, by making an application to the Competent Authority,
and, the Competent Authority, on being satisfied that the period
of licence has expired, shall pass an order for eviction of a
licensee.

¶105

(2)Any licensee who does not deliver possession of the
premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of licence and
continues to be in possession of the licensed premises till he is
dispossessed by the Competent Authority shall be liable to pay
damages at double the rate of the licence fee or charge of the
premises fixed under the agreement of the licence.

¶106

(3)The Competent Authority shall not entertain any claim of
whatever nature from any other person who is not a licensee
according to the agreement of licence.

¶107

 Explanation – For the purposes of this section,-

¶108

(a) the expression “landlord” includes a successor-in-
interest who becomes the landlord of the premises as a result of
death of such landlord; but does not include a tenant or a sub-
tenant who has given premise on licence;

¶109

(b) an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive
evidence of the fact stated therein.

¶110

(emphasis supplied)

¶111

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 17 of 23

¶112

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶113

24.The above quoted provisions of Section 24, also clearly refers to
licence “for residence”, which in my view means the purpose for which the
licence has been given. What the Section 24 is concerned with is the
purpose for which the premises is let. A reading of the clauses in the leave
and licence agreement quoted above clearly indicate that the intention of
the parties is that the licence is for the purpose of residential
accommodation of the the Petitioner’s clients / business
associates/representatives. The Petitioner has not mentioned whether she
had taken permission from the society or Municipal corporation of Greater
Mumbai, for a commercial activity. That Respondent No.3 has never
proposed or offered to convert the said flats to commercial premises and
that as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Rent Control Act, the
landlord shall not permit the commercial use of a residential premises.
That as per provisions explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Rent Control
Act, the agreement in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the facts
stated therein. In the said leave and license agreements, nowhere
Respondent No. 3 has authorised / permitted the Petitioner to use the said
flats for a commercial activity/use or purposes. Hence, as per the
registered agreements between the parties, the intention of the parties was
only for letting the said flats for residential accommodation purpose. Just

¶114

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 18 of 23

¶115

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶116

because the said flats are being used by the client/business
associates/representatives of the Petitioner does not mean that the
purpose will change from residential to commercial. Being guided by the
decision of this Court in the case of Automatic Electric Limited, Vadala Vs.
Shardea V. Chitnis (supra), I am also of the view that the use of the said
flats by the Petitioner for corporate residential accommodation purpose for
its client/business associates/representatives is only for residence purpose
as contemplated in Section 24 of the Rent Act and cannot be said to be
commercial purpose.

¶117

25.In the case of Nand Kishor Vs. Yashpal Singh (supra),relied upon by
the Respondent No.3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was deciding a case
under Section 11 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949,
which restricts a person licensor/licensee to convert a residential building
into non-residential without the permission of the rent controller. As per
Section 30 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, residential premises
cannot be converted for commercial use. Therefore, applying the ratio of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above to the facts of the present case, the
case of the Petitioner that the Application under Rent Control Act are not

¶118

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 19 of 23

¶119

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶120

maintainable, is not tenable. In any event the Petitioner is not permitted to
use residential premises for a commercial purpose.

¶121

26.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Delhi Municipal Council
Vs. Sohan Lal Sachdev (Dead) (supra).In my view the said decision is not
applicable as it was rendered in the context of the provisions of Section 23
of the Indian Electricity Act, wherein the issue was with regard to the
category of charges of electricity levied on a premises, admittedly, being
used as a guest house. In the facts of the case the agreement, as noted
above, refers to the use of the premises for residence purpose and
therefore the said judgment is not relevant to the facts of this case. The
learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the
Aurangabad bench of this Court in the case of Darshasingh Indarsingh
Sodhi and Anr Vs. Poddar Education and Sports Trust Through its
Managing Trustee Pawan Poddar and another (supra).In my view the said
decision is distinguishable on facts in as much as in the said case the
premises was given for a commercial purpose for running a school
whereas in the present case, the Respondent No.3 had given the said flats

¶122

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 20 of 23

¶123

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶124

to the Petitioner for corporate residential accommodation purpose.
Therefore the said decision would not assist the case of the Petitioner.

¶125

27.The Additional Commissioner after recording that the only
contention that was raised by the Petitioner was that the said flats were
given for commercial purpose and not for residence purpose and
therefore, the competent authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the
eviction petition, held that it was clear that the said flats were used for
residence purpose and not for commercial use.

¶126

28.The Additional Commissioner has also considered the failure of the
negotiation between the Petitioner and the Respondent to pay
maintenance bill against relaxation of monthly license fees and that the
Petitioner had decided to vacate the said flats and hand over the same to
the Respondent due to the restrictions of entry of customers but since the
Respondent was not returning the security deposits but compelling
payment of license fees for the period under the lock-down, Petitioner was
in occupation till November-2021. That according to the Respondent No.3
as per clause 3 of the leave and license agreement, the Respondent has to

¶127

refund the security deposit after deducting all dues recoverable and the

¶128

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 21 of 23

¶129

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶130

balance amount, if any, as payable is to be refunded upon handing over
the possession of the said flats by the Petitioner.

¶131

29.After holding that the Respondent No.3 proves his ownership rights
to the said flats which is not disputed by the Petitioner, after having
recorded the existence of the registered leave and license agreement
executed between them and after having recorded that after the
termination of license, the Petitioner failed to vacate the premises and
even failed to pay the monthly compensation, the Revisional Authority
held that the Petitioner had had failed to pay the leave and license fees
and also vacated the said flats after the expiry of the license and upheld
the orders of the Competent Authority, Konkan Division dated 20th
December, 2021 directing the Petitioner to make payment of arrears of
license fee and damages to the Respondent No. 3 with liberty to
appropriate the security deposits.

¶132

30.In my view, the Competent Authority as well as Revisional Authority
has correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Rent Control
Act. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error nor any perversity nor
any illegality in the orders dated 13th July, 2022 passed by the Additional

¶133

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11^th January, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 22 of 23

¶134

 WP 15222-22 @ WP 15224-22-corrected.odt

¶135

Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan in confirming the order dated 20th
December, 2021 passed by Competent Authority.

¶136

31.The Writ Petitions are therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Interim orders also stand vacated.

¶137

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2024.01.12
15:52:38
+0530

¶138

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶139

This Judgment is modified/corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 11th January, 2024.
Nikita Gadgil 23 of 23

Veridical Hospitality v. Additional Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veridical Hospitality v. Additional Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reshma Shivraj Bhosale Vs Shivraj Bapusaheb Bhosle

Yugandhara Vaibhav Meshram Alias Yugandhara Ruprao Meshram Vs Vaibhav Purshottam Meshram

Rahish Ramzan Khan and Mohammed Raees Ramzan Khan Son of Ramzan Ali Khan Vs Mrs. Fatima Mohammad Raees Khan Wife of Mohammad Rahish Khan

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Varsha Sandeep Sabale and Ors.

Smt. Meenal Madan Kshirsagar for Self and Heir and Legal Rep.of Late Madan K.Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs Bombay Panjrapole Public Charitable Trust and Ors.

Sunanda Haribhau Khaire Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Divisional Manager, Mumbai