Writ Petition No.6519 of 2008. Case: Geeta N Shivdasani Vs Niraj T. Sharma and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No.6519 of 2008 |
| Counsel | Pankaj S Shah, P S Dani, S G Karandikar |
| Judges | Mohta Anoop V., J. |
| Issue | Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sections 24 and 44 |
| Citation | 2009 (2) BomCR 274 |
| Judgement Date | October 21, 2008 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Heard finally.
The petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings and orders based upon the same passed by the authorities under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act), whereby she has been directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of residential premises i.e. Flat No.406, Yeshwant Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Juhu-Versova Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053, to the respondent/original applicant and further directed to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.30,800/- per month from 1.2.2006 till handing over of possession.
The respondent/applicant has initiated eviction proceedings under Section 24 of MRC Act on account of failure of petitioner to vacate the same after expiry of licence period. The parties have led evidence. The issues were framed. After considering the material as well as evidence led by the parties, the Competent Authority has held that the petitioner is licensee and the respondent is licensor; the licence period expired; the petitioner not cooperated in registration of the agreement and, therefore, ordered to give vacant possession of the premises. It is also held that the petitioner/licensee failed to prove that she is in possession of the suit premises in a capacity other than the licensee.
The Additional Commissioner being Revisional Authority, under Section 44 of the MRC Act has re-considered and confirmed the order of Competent Authority in all respect.
Once the licence period is expired, the licensee considering the scheme of MRC Act, 1999 need to give vacant possession if demanded by the licensor. The licence agreement that itself binds the parties. The licensee thereafter cannot claim right of tenancy based upon the leave and licence agreement dated 1.4.2004 inquestion. There is no material and evidence to justify about creation of any tenancy. Mere acceptance of some amount after expiry of the said licence period which in fact was the arrears of rent that itself cannot create any agreement of tenancy. The licensor is bound to accept the payments which are due and payable by the licensee based upon the said agreement, as admittedly, after expiry of the licence period, the petitioner/licensee is in occupation of the said flat though directed to vacate. The exclusive possession of the suit premises based upon such agreement that itself cannot create any tenancy in view of the specific provisions of MRC Act and the agreement in question. The security deposit also...
To continue reading
Request your trial