Bombay High Court
Pravin Hasham Shaikh vs Abid Abbas Gulabar on 2 March, 2021
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
29 wpst 95-21=
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sneha CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
N.
Chavan WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 95 OF 2021
Digitally signed
by Sneha N.
Chavan
Parvin Hasham Shaikh .. Petitioner
Date: V/s.
2021.03.04
15:57:50 +0530
Abid Abbas Gulabar ..Respondent
----
Mr. Pankaj Pande i/b R.C. Pandey for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aslam Shaikh for the Respondent.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 02nd MARCH, 2021
P.C.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the Judgment and Order
dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan
Division in Revision Application No. 36 of 2020. By the impugned
judgment, the revisional authority has dismissed the revision
application, thereby confirming the order dated 31.12.2019 passed
by the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra
Rent Control Act, 1999 ('the Act' for short) in Eviction Application
No. 89 of 2019 by which the Competent Authority has directed the
Sneha Chavan page 1 of 6
29 wpst 95-21=
eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises which is Flat No.
101, first floor, 'B' Wing, Khalil Mansion, Ghaswala Compound, Opp.
Kausa Kabrasta, Mumbra.
3. Respondent No.1 has purchased the suit premises from Abbas
Shamshuddin Gulbar. The petitioner had approached the
respondent requesting him to allow to use and occupy the suit
premises on a leave and license basis. Accordingly, a leave and
license agreement was executed on 02.02.2015 for a period of 22
months. The period of the leave and license agreement was from
25.02.2015 to 24.12.2016. The petitioner had paid a refundable
security deposit of Rs.4,00,000/-.
4. It is the further contention that after the expiry of the said
leave and licenses agreement, a fresh leave and license agreement
was executed on 24.07.2017 of which the license period ended on
31.03.2018. There was a third leave and license agreement
executed on 24.07.2017, which was for six months, period
commencing from 01.05.2018 and ending with 31.10.2018. The
other terms and conditions of the agreement remained the same.
Sneha Chavan page 2 of 6
29 wpst 95-21=
5. It is the material case that the petitioner failed to vacate the
suit premises, even after the expiry of the third leave and license
agreement, which led the respondent to approach the competent
authority as aforesaid.
6. It appears that the petitioner (respondent before the
competent authority) appeared, but failed to seek permission for
leave to defend as per Section 43(4)(a) of the Act, within the
prescribed period of 30 days and sought condonation of delay, which
prayer was rejected. The Competent Authority, thus, found that
there was no defence on the part of the petitioner.
7. In such circumstances, the Competent Authority by order
dated 31.12.2019 directed the petitioner to handover vacant and
peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent which
order has been confirmed by the revisional authority. Hence, this
petition.
8. I have heard Mr. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Shaikh, the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused
record.
Sneha Chavan page 3 of 6
29 wpst 95-21=
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on 23.02.2021 made a
statement on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner shall file
usual undertaking, if, reasonable time of about one month is granted
to vacate the suit premises.
10. However, today the learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the petitioner is not ready and willing to file undertaking.
11. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal
of the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the revisional
Authority, I do not find that any case for interference is made out in
the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. It is now well settled that the jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is neither appellate,
nor revisional, it is essentially supervisory in nature aimed at
ensuring that the courts and tribunals subordinate to this Court, act
within the bounds of their authority and the orders passed do not
result into any manifest injustice (see Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr.
v/s. Rajendra Shankar Patil 1 and Radhey Shyam and Another v/s.
Chhabi Nath and Ors.2).
1 (2010) 8 SCC 329
2 (2015) 5 SCC 423
Sneha Chavan page 4 of 6
29 wpst 95-21=
12. The record shows that the last of the leave and license
agreement has expired. That apart, the petitioner failed to deliver
any defence by seeking appropriate leave and the application Exhibit
18 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay was rejected by
order dated 31.12.2019 based on the decision of the Supreme Court
in Prakash H. Jain v/s. Marie Fernandes Ms.1
13. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly, dismissed
with no order as to costs.
14. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a
limited prayer raising issue about the quantum of the security
deposit. It is submitted that every time a fresh leave and license
agreement was entered into, the security deposit was paid to the
respondent, which is disputed on behalf of the respondent. The
learned counsel for the respondent points out that the security
deposit was paid only at the time of the initial agreement which
continued during the course of the successive leave and license
agreements.
1 AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4591(1)
Sneha Chavan page 5 of 6
29 wpst 95-21=
15. In view of the fact that this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the order directing eviction, it is not necessary or possible to
record a finding on the question of the security deposit.
16. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the issue of
the security deposit. Rival contentions in that regard are left open.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
Sneha Chavan page 6 of 6
