Dismissed

Mrs. Ranu Bhattacharjee and Anr. v. Mr. Gokul Pradhan through Its Constituted Attorney Mr. Rakesh Singh, and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Apr 2024WP/2596/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Licensees challenged eviction orders under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, contending the unregistered leave and licence agreement could not sustain eviction and seeking leave to defend based on an agreement for sale. Following this Court's prior decision and noting no relief in the pending specific performance suit and voluntary surrender of possession, the writ petition was dismi

What the court decided

AI extract

Mrs. Ranu Bhattacharjee and Anr. Vs Mr. Gokul Pradhan… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/6

¶3

34 - WP 2596 OF 2018.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2024.04.20 14:14:53 +0530

¶6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2596 OF 2018
ALONGWITH

¶8

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1783 OF 2019
IN

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 2596 OF 2018

¶10

Mrs. Ranu Bhattacharjee & Anr.

¶11

...Petitioners

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

Mr. Gokul Pradhan Through
Its Constituted Attorney
Mr. Rakesh Singh, And Ors.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Mr. Prashant Malik a/w. Mr.Vijay Chauhan i/b. Ms.Rekha Satpute
for the Petitioners.

¶16

Ms.Fatima Lakdawala for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶18

 DATE : 15 APRIL, 2024

¶19

P.C. :-

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the licensee, challenging the
order passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division dated
21 August, 2017 and order dated 17 April, 2014 passed by the
Competent Authority, Konkan Division thereby allowing the
application under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act

¶21

KVM

¶22

2/6

¶23

34 - WP 2596 OF 2018.doc

¶24

filed by the licensor, and as confirmed by the Additional
Commissioner, Konkan Division by its order dated 21 August,
2017.

¶25

2. There is no dispute between the parties that the possession

¶26

of the suit premises has been handed over by the
petitioner/licensee on 11 October, 2017.

¶27

3.It is the case of the petition that the leave and licence
agreement dated 18 July, 2009 was an unregistered documents,
therefore the Competent Authority should not have entertained
the application filed for eviction, under section 24 of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

¶28

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they have already filed a

¶29

suit for specific performance before the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Vasai against Gokul Pradhan, in the year 2014. It is the
case of the petitioners that leave to defend should have granted

¶30

KVM

¶31

3/6

¶32

34 - WP 2596 OF 2018.doc

¶33

to the petitioners/licensee as they have entered into the
agreement for sale with the original owner of the suit premises
and had made partial payment to the original owner. Therefore,
the leave should have been granted to defend by which the
petitioners could have brought on record all the necessary
documents pertaining to the agreement for sale.

¶34

5.Ms. Lakdawala, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.2 submits that the specific performance suit on the
alleged documents was filed in the year 2014 before the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Vasai and till date no relief is granted in
favour of the present petitioners. She submits that after the
licence period was over, the petitioners do not vacate the suit
premises and therefore her client had no option but to file a suit
for eviction under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act. She submits that since there was no relief granted in the
specific performance suit, the Competent Authority after
considering the documents on record, including the leave and

¶35

KVM

¶36

4/6

¶37

34 - WP 2596 OF 2018.doc

¶38

licence agreement, it has declined the request made by the
petitioners/licensee, to ‘leave to defend’. She submits that there

¶39

is no perversity in the order passed by the Competent Authority

¶40

and the Additional Commissioner of Konkan Division.

¶41

6. Mr.Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners has denied the

¶42

execution of the leave and licence agreement.

¶43

7. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.

¶44

8.It is the case of the petitioners/licensee that the suit for
eviction under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
based on the unregistered leave and licence agreement was not
maintainable.

¶45

9. This Court in case of Dhun Dhunji Patel vs. Kersi Minocher Gherda, Deleted (since deceased) & Ors., in Interim Application

¶46

No. 1111 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 1487 of 2024 dated 14

¶47

KVM

¶48

5/6

¶49

34 - WP 2596 OF 2018.doc

¶50

February, 2024 has already decided that the eviction suit under
section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act on an
unregistered leave and licence agreement is maintainable.

¶51

10.As regards the issue about agreement of sale being entered
into between the petitioners and the earlier landlord is
concerned, a suit for specific performance being Special Suit
No.144 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioners before the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Vasai. Admittedly, as of today, there are
no reliefs granted in favour of the present petitioners, after a
lapse of 10 years. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion
that the petitioners have not produced on record any kind of
document, to prove that they had become entitled to become
owner of the suit premises pursuant to any kind of document
entered into between the petitioner and the original owner.

¶52

11.The petitioners have themselves come forward and handed
over the possession in the execution application on, 10 October,

¶53

6/6

¶54

KVM

¶55

34 - WP 2596 OF 2018.doc

¶56

2017. The possession was taken over by the executing court.

¶57

12.As per the respondents, the outstanding amount payable as
of today after deducting the security deposit is around
Rs.4,66,000/-. Since the petitioners have already handed over
the possession, the only decree which remains to be executed
would be the outstanding amount payable, as per the impugned
orders.

¶58

13.I find no infirmity in the orders passed. Writ petition is
dismissed. No costs.

¶59

14.In sequel, interim application is also disposed of.

¶60

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Mrs. Ranu Bhattacharjee and Anr. v. Mr. Gokul Pradhan through Its Constituted Attorney Mr. Rakesh Singh, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mrs. Ranu Bhattacharjee and Anr. v. Mr. Gokul Pradhan through Its Constituted Attorney Mr. Rakesh Singh, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Govind Omprakash Soni vs State of Maharashtra Thr Vanrai Police Station Goregaon, Mumbai

Zubair Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar Ustad vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahendra B Thakkar Vs Hatim Chinwala and Ors.

Jayashree Ramchandra Ghodke and Ors. Vs Suhas Prabhakar Angal

Shikha Lodha Vs Suketu Shah and Anr.

Mr. Ishwar Singh Gangasingh Chowhan Vs Smt. Jayalaxmi Kantilal