Dismissed

Mrs. Pooja Jagannath Pimple v. Additional Commissioner Kokan Division

Bombay HC8 Jan 2024WP/9615/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A licensee challenged concurrent orders under sections 24 and 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act directing her to hand over possession and pay double licence fees. Having failed to comply with an undertaking given before the Competent Authority, she showed no sufficient reason for relief. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mrs. Pooja Jagannath Pimple Vs Additional Commissioner… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/6

¶3

13 - IA 15483 OF 2023.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

KANCHAN Digitally signed byKANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2024.01.1114:02:45 +0530

¶6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 9615 OF 2023

¶8

ALONGWITH

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15483 OF 2023
IN

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 9615 OF 2023

¶11

Pooja Jagannath Pimple & Anr.….. Petitioner/
Applicants

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

Additional Commissioner Kokan
Division & Anr.….. Respondents

¶14

Mr.C.P.Deogirikar a/w. Mr.Drupad Patil, Mr.Sameer Logade for the
Applicants.

¶15

Mr.A.M.Saraogi a/w. Mr.Manoj Singh, Mr.A.R.Pandey for the
Respondent No.2.

¶16

CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶17

 DATE : 8 JANUARY, 2024

¶18

P.C. :-

¶19

This interim application is filed by the licencee, under the

¶20

leave and licence agreement.

¶21

2. The concurrent findings recorded by the Competent

¶22

Authority under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act

¶23

and the Revisional Authority under section 44 of the Maharashtra

¶24

KVM

¶25

2/6

¶26

13 - IA 15483 OF 2023.doc

¶27

Rent Control Act.

¶28

3.The respondent is admittedly the owner of the premises
being Flat No.D/62, 6th Floor, Rustomjee Riviera, Marve Road,
Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064. The petitioner and the
respondent had entered into the registered leave and licence
agreements, last of such leave and licence agreement ended on
28 February, 2017. The monthly licence fees payable was
Rs.50,000/- per month. Since the parties did not enter into any
fresh leave and licence agreement after 28 February, 2017, the
respondent landlord filed eviction application No. 84 of 2019
before the Competent Authority under section 24 of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act. After the parties were heard, and
considering the evidence on record, the Competent Authority by
its judgment and order dated 28 November, 2022 allowed the
eviction application of the licensor and directed the licencee
(petitioner herein), to handover the vacant and peaceful
possession of the suit premises. Further, the licencee was also
directed to pay the damages to the licensor at the rate of

¶29

KVM

¶30

3/6

¶31

13 - IA 15483 OF 2023.doc

¶32

Rs.1,00,000/- per month ( Rs.50,000 x 2 = Rs. 1,00,000/-) from
1 April, 2017 till handing over the vacant possession.

¶33

4.The licencee thereafter challenged the judgment and order
dated 28 November, 2022 passed by the Competent Authority, by
way of revision under section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional
Commissioner after hearing the parties, by its judgment and
order dated 24 May, 2023 rejected the revision filed by the
licencee.

¶34

5. The present writ petition is filed by the licencee challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities.

¶35

6.Learned advocate for the respondent/licensor has placed
before this Court a photocopy of an undertaking dated 19
December, 2023, filed by the licencee before the Competent
Authority. For ease of reference, the said undertaking given by
the licencee is produced hereinbelow :-

¶36

KVM

¶37

4/6

¶38

13 - IA 15483 OF 2023.doc

¶39

KVM

¶40

5/6

¶41

13 - IA 15483 OF 2023.doc

¶42

7.It is the case of the licensor that after such a solemn

¶43

undertaking was given by the licencee with the Competent
Authority, they have not complied with the said undertaking and
have not deposited any money as per the undertaking given by
them.

¶44

8.It is admitted fact that even today, the licencee is in
possession of the suit premises.

¶45

9.Mr.Deogirikar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that his client wants to file a suit for specific performance
against the licensor, for which he requires two months’ time.

¶46

10.No satisfying reason is shown by the licencee not to comply
with the undertaking given before the Competent Authority. The
licencee has sought time to deposit certain amount for clearing
the arrears.

¶47

11.No case is made out to interfere with the concurrent
findings recorded by the Competent Authority and the Additional

¶48

KVM

¶49

6/6

¶50

13 - IA 15483 OF 2023.doc

¶51

Commissioner, Konkan Division.

¶52

12. Hence writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶53

13. Pending interim application is also disposed of.

¶54

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Mrs. Pooja Jagannath Pimple v. Additional Commissioner Kokan Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mrs. Pooja Jagannath Pimple v. Additional Commissioner Kokan Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajpe Shivram Shetty Vs Idbi Bank Ltd.

Idbi Bank Limited Vs Shri. Bajpe Shivram Shetty

Shiladevi Mahendraprasad Sharma and Ors. Vs Atmaram Laxmanrao Shinde (Dec.) Thr. Lrs. Sarvesh Atmaram Shinde

Sudha Jayshankar Pillai Thr Poa Amish Ashwin Shah and Anr. Vs Surendra Pratap Singh

Mr. Yang Yau Shin Vs Sonal Anuj Mehra

Mr. Sunil Niranjan Jhaveri Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. a Govt. of India Enterprises