The petitioner challenged an order by the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act directing eviction and payment of license fees/damages. The court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition despite efforts for settlement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
KVM
1/4
901 - WP 3671 OF 2024.doc
Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2024.04.10 17:58:32 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3671 OF 2024
Pratap Ramchandra Daule
….. Petitioner
VERSUS
Rita Pankaj Bhatt & Ors.
….. Respondents
Mr.Pratap R. Daule Petitioner present in person.
Mr.Prerak A. Sharma a/w. Mr.Nihir U. Dedhia for the Respondent
no.1.
Mr.Kartik Shah, Son-in-law of the Respondent no.1 is present in
Court.
CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 5 APRIL, 2024
P.C. :-
The petitioner in the present case is claiming to be a
licensee of the respondent no.1. There was a leave and licence
agreement entered into between the parties wherein the licence
fee was Rs.16,500/- per month. The licence period was to expire
on 31 May, 2019.
KVM
2/4
901 - WP 3671 OF 2024.doc
2.It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter it was agreed
that the licence period be extended by 22 months. The said fact
about licence period being extended by 22 months has not been
accepted by the counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. He
submits that after the licence period was over, the application
under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was filed
before the Competent Authority. He submitted that the petitioner
appeared before the Competent Authority and filed an
application for granting of leave to defend. He submitted that
the said application for leave to defend was rejected and
thereafter the eviction application itself was decided and the
petitioner was directed to vacate the suit premises and pay the
licence fees as per the provisions of section 24(2). He submitted
that the said order passed by the Competent Authority was
challenged before the Commissioner, Konkan Division. The said
application was also rejected. Therefore, the present writ
petitioner is filed before this Court. He submits that as of today,
the outstanding amount is Rs.4,94,000/-.
KVM
3/4
901 - WP 3671 OF 2024.doc
3.It is an admitted fact that on 7 August, 2021, the possession
of the suit premises has been handed over to the respondent
no.1/licensor. Hence, in the present matter, the only issue is
about payment of damages as per the order passed by the
Competent Authority.
4.This Court tried to grant certain concession to the
petitioner as the respondent no.1’s advocate was ready to give
certain discount so that the matter can be amicably settled.
However, Mr.Daule, petitioner was not ready to pay the amount
as agreed by the respondent after discount and insisted that at
the most he can pay Rs.1,50,000/- within reasonable period.
5.Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on
instructions from his client (son-in-law who is present in Court)
submitted that the respondent no.1’s husband had suffered
cancer and during that period, they were in dire need of monies.
However, the petitioner at that time refused to pay the
outstanding amount. However, even today the respondent no.1
KVM
901 - WP 3671 OF 2024.doc
is ready to give discount and settle this matter for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- without prejudice to the rights and contentions.
However, Mr.Daule is not ready to offer anything above
Rs.1,50,000/-.
6. I have considered the impugned order and I am not able to
find any infirmity in the impugned order though on humanity
ground, the respondent no.1 licensor was ready to waive off
certain amounts. However, the petitioner is not ready to adhere
to pay anything above Rs.1,50,000/-.
7. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of the Competent Authority directing payment of damages and possession was valid and deserving of interference in writ jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pratap Ramchandra Daule
Rita Pankaj Bhatt
Ors.
RAJESH S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court