Ramesh Sakharam Nikalje vs Sopan Nikalje and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

Ramesh Sakharam Nikalje vs Sopan Nikalje and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims he was made to believe that the instrument dated 17 March 2017 would transfer the licensed premises to him, could contest the character of the agreement dated 17 March 2017 (in effect a leave and licence agreement) by contending that the real transaction between him and respondent no. 1 was different from what the document represents. +1 more

Court's answer

Under Explanation (b), an agreement of licence in writing is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.

Ratio / Principle

A party who professes to contest the apparent character of a written document of licence bears a heavy onus.

Key takeaways

In his reply notice dated 8 September 2017 the petitioner/licensee admitted in no uncertain terms the jural relationship between the parties; the execution of the leave and licence agreement and the relationship formed thereunder stood categorically admitted, and there was no material to show to the contrary.ratio¶22
There is a distinction between a challenge to a document qua its character and a challenge to its contents; a party is entitled to question the character of a document by contending that what it represents was not the real transaction between the parties.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N.J. Jamadar, J.), Writ Petition No. 3477 of 2025, decided 23 June 2025 - Ramesh Sakharam Nikalje v. Sopan Nikalje & Ors.: Article 227 petition against the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division's order dated 4 February 2025 dismissing Revision Application No. Rent/Riv/Pune/535/2024 under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, affirming the Competent Authority's Section 24 order dated 12 July 2024 directing handover of vacant possession of licensed premises and damages at Rs. 2000/- p.m. from 17 May 2017. HELD: under Explanation (b) an agreement of licence in writing is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, placing a heavy onus on a party professing to contest the apparent character of the document; the petitioner, in his reply notice dated 8 September 2017, admitted in no uncertain terms the jural relationship and the execution of the leave and licence agreement dated 17 March 2017, with no material to the contrary. His attempt to contest the character of the instrument on the basis of his relationship with respondent no. 1 therefore failed; no infirmity in the impugned orders; writ petition dismissed.

2025:BHC-AS:25028

48-wp-3477-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3477 OF 2025

Shri Ramesh Sakharam Nikalje … Petitioner V/s. Shri Sopan Nikalje and Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Adityaraj A. Chavan a/w Shubham Chavan, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashutosh R. Gole a/w Rahul B. Salve, for the respondent no. 1. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE : 23RD JUNE 2025.

PC:

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, proprietary and correctness of an order dated 4^th February 2025, passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune whereby the Revision Application being No. Rent/Riv/Pune/ 535/ 2024, preferred by the petitioner under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (the Rent Act, 1999) came to be dismissed affirming the order dated 12^th July 2024 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Rent Act, thereby directing the petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of

1 of 3

varsha

48-wp-3477-2025.doc

the licenced premises and pay damages to the licensor at the rate of Rs. 2000/- p.m. from 17^th May 2017 till the delivery of vacant possession of licenced premises.

Mr. Adityaraj Chavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would urge that both the Revisional Authority and Competent Authority have committed error in law in not appreciating the real nature of the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1, who is the real brother of the petitioner. Taking undue advantage of the illiteracy and adverse social condition of the petitioner the respondent no. 1, who was in a domineering position, got an instrument executed from the petitioner without disclosing its true nature. The petitioner was made to believe that under the said instrument dated 17^th March 2017, the licensed premises would be transferred to the petitioner. In substance, an effort was made to put in contest the character of the agreement dated 17^th March 2017; which is, in effect, a leave and license agreement.

Indeed there is a distinction between challenge to a document qua its character and the contents thereof. A party is entitled to question the character of the document by contending that, what the document represents was not the real transaction between the

2 of 3

varsha

48-wp-3477-2025.doc

parties. However, in the facts of the case at hand, the petitioner has to encounter apparently insuperable impediments.

Firstly, under Explanation (b) an agreement of license in writing is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Heavy onus would rest on a party who professes to contest the apparent character of the document. Secondly, in the case at hand, on the one hand, there is no material to show to the contrary and, on the other hand, in the reply notice dated 8^th September 2017, the petitioner / licensee has admitted in no uncertain terms the jural relationship between the parties. The execution of leave and licence agreement and the relationship formed thereunder, are categorically admitted. It was also contended that the petitioner/licencee had paid the licence fee, as agreed.

In the aforesaid view of the matter the endeavour of Mr. Chavan to question the character of the instrument on the basis of relationship between the parties, does not merit countenance. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders. Hence, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The petition stands dismissed.

(N.J. JAMADAR, J)

Signed by: S.S.Phadke varsha Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 24/06/2025 20:02:47

3 of 3