Bombay High Court
Smt. Vamaladevi Omprakash ... vs Mrs. Archana Raju Mankar on 10 March, 2021
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
23 wp 791-19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 791 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 250 OF 2021
Mrs. Archana Raju Mankar ..Petitioner
V/s.
Smt. Vimaladevi Omprakash Agarwal & Ors. ..Respondents
----
Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner.
Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni for the Respondents and the applicants in
IA/250/2021.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 10th MARCH, 2021
P.C.
1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order
dated 19.08.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune
Division Pune in Revision Application No. 23 of 2018 by which the
Revisional Authority has confirmed the order dated 21.12.2017
passed by the Competent Authority, under the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999 ('the Act' for short). By the order dated
21.12.2017, the application filed by the Applicant/ Petitioner to
withdraw the pursis dated 28.06.2017 and for a permission to cross-
examine the respondents has been rejected.
Sneha Chavan page 1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 01:21:15 :::
23 wp 791-19
2. The Applicant is the original opponent before the Competent
Authority, in an application under Section 24 filed by the
Respondents for eviction of the Applicant/ Petitioner from the suit
premises. The Respondents are the licensors. The Petitioner is
occupying the suit premises under a leave and license agreement,
upon expiry of which the aforesaid application came to be filed by
the Respondents for eviction.
3. It appears that by an order dated 16.09.2016, the competent
authority had granted leave to the Petitioner to defend the
application inasmuch as in view of the Competent Authority, the
mere denial of the Respondents regarding non receipt of the licence
fee from February 2015 "cannot decide their claim under Section 24
of the said Act". Pursuant to the leave granted, the Applicant has
filed the written statement opposing the application on various
grounds.
4. It appears that on 28.06.2017 a pursis was purportedly filed
on behalf of the Applicant stating that she does not want to contest
the case any further and the application may accordingly be
decided. Subsequently, the Applicant filed "explanation-cum-
objection" to the said pursis on 05.12.2017 setting out the
Sneha Chavan page 2 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 01:21:15 :::
23 wp 791-19
circumstances in which the pursis was allegedly filed. According to
the Applicant, the Respondents have received total amount of
Rs.3,90,000/- from the Applicant out of which Rs.3,10,000/- has
been received on 19.04.2017 and Rs.80,000/- on 08.05.2017, both
by demand drafts. According to the Applicant, it was represented
that the leave and license agreement shall be renewed and
therefore, she has purchased the necessary stamp papers. In short,
according to the Applicant, her signature was obtained on the
pretext of renewal of leave and license agreement which ultimately
turned out to be the pursis as aforesaid. In short, according to the
Applicant, there is no conscious execution of the said pursis. Hence,
the Applicant sought withdrawal of said pursis.
5. The competent authority rejected the said prayer with the
following order.
"ORDER
Both requests of the opponent are time barred as
request of withdrawal of pursis dated 28.06.2017 is filed
after 6 months and request to cross-examine the Applicant
is filed after 1 year. Hence, this application is rejected."
6. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant challenged the same before
the Revisional Authority, which has confirmed the said order.
Sneha Chavan page 3 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 01:21:15 :::
23 wp 791-19
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
8. In my considered view, the impugned order deserves to be set
aside on conditions. It is necessary to note that the competent
authority had granted leave to the Applicant to defend the
application and even the written statement was filed setting out
defence of the Applicant. Thus, this is not a case where at the outset
or without seeking any leave or filing written statement, a pursis
simplicitor was passed that Applicant does not want to
contest/defend the application and same may be decided
accordingly. The fact that the Applicant had sought the leave and
filed the written statement would make it writ large that Applicant
had a defence in the matter which was also delivered upon
obtaining of the leave. At this stage, it is neither necessary, nor
appropriate to go into the question whether the defence can be
ultimately sustained. The question is only about the pursis filed on
28.06.2017. Atleast prima facie it appears that the Applicant had
paid total amount of Rs.3,90,000/- by demand drafts and it is in this
context a claim is made by the Applicant that there was a
representation made that the leave and licence agreement shall be
renewed. Considering the over of circumstances, in my considered
Sneha Chavan page 4 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 01:21:15 :::
23 wp 791-19
view and in the interest of a fair disposal of the application, it is
necessary to grant an opportunity to the Applicant to contest the
application on the basis of the defence already delivered. Perusal of
the order dated 21.12.2017 would show that the permission to
withdraw the pursis was not granted only on the ground that it is
time barred. No provision setting out any such limitation has been
brought to my notice on behalf of the Respondents. Taking an over
all view of the matter, I find that the impugned order can be set
aside subject to the Petitioner depositing the arrears of licence fee as
agreed and continuing to depositing the same every month.
9. In such circumstances, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside, subject to the
petitioner depositing the arrears of the licence fee as per the rate
agreed, within a period of eight weeks from today and the petitioner
continuing to deposit the monthly licence fee every month.
iii) Deposit of the amount is the condition precedent for disposal
of the writ petition in the aforesaid terms.
Sneha Chavan page 5 of 6
23 wp 791-19
iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
v) Pending Interim Application is disposed of.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
Sneha Chavan page 6 of 6
