Bombay High Court
Mayur Nitin Nagaonkar vs Additional Commissioner Kokan ... on 3 September, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:37021
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
Arun Sankpal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13166 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13053 OF 2024
Mayur Nitin Nagonkar ..Petitioner
Age-35 years, Occupation -Service
Indian Inhabitant, residing at,
Flat No. 201/11-B, Harmony
Cooperative Housing Society Limited,
Shailendra Nagar, Dahisar East,
Mumbai - 400 068.
Email: [email protected]
Versus
1. Additional Commissioner, Kokan Division, ...Respondents
having its address at,
15, Madame Cama Road, Mantralaya,
Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 032.
2. The Competent Authority (Rent Act)
Kokan Division,
Having address at 5th floor,
Gruh Nirman Bhavan,
Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051.
3. Nisha Ramakant More,
Age-61, Occupation retired,
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Indian Inhabitant, having permanent
Digitally signed by
Address at Flat No. A-507, 5th floor,
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Om Shiv Sai Cooperative Housing Society
Date: 2025.09.03
20:57:50 +0530 Limited, Joglekarwadi, Sion East,
Mumbai 400 022.
And
Flat No. 101, 1st floor, A Wing Mohan Mansion
Cooperative Housing Society Limited,
Gulmohar Road, Off Eastern Express Highway,
Sion, Chunabhatti,
1/17
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:00 :::
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
Mumbai 400 032.
Email ID: Not Available
Mobile Number: Not avialable.
4. Monish Builder,
Registered Office at Monish Builders,
7-B Cenced Apartment, 318-Union Park,
Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052.
And
Sales Office at Ground Floor, Mohan Mansion,
Gulmohar Lane, Sion-Chunabhatti (E),
Mumbai 400 022.
5. Kishor Advani
Authorized Representative of Respondent No.4
Age-adult, Occupation-Business,
5th Floor, Vasu Bhavan, 11th Road,
Opposite Hinduja Helathcare,
Khar (W), Mumbai - 400 052.
6. Ramesh G Gangawani
The Partner of Respondent No.4,
Age-adult, Occupation-Business,
Regd. Office: Monish Builders,
7-B, Cenced Apartment, 318 Union Park,
Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052.
7. Baburao B Patil
The Partner of Respondent No.4
Age-adult, Occupation-Business,
Regd Office: 88 Nirankar Mandir Marg
Juhu Nagar, Sector 12, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai 400 703.
8. Tejaswani A Patil,
The partner of Respondent No.4,
Age-adult, Occupation-Business,
Regd Office: 88 Nirankar Mandir Marg,
Juhu Nagar, Sector 12, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai 400 703.
9. Jyotindrakumar Poonamchand Shah,
The Partner of Respondent No.4
Age-adult, Occupation-Business,
2/17
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:40:00 :::
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
R/o D-1, S-1, New Alkanand Society,
M.G. Complex, Sector-14,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai 700 703.
Mr. Saurish Shetye, with Aishwarya Tambe, i/b Amit Tungare, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Bharat G. Thorat, for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Ganesh Singh, for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 4th JULY 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner takes exception to a judgment and order dated 10 th
August 2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division,
in Revision Application No. 174 of 2022 whereby the said Revision
Application preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed by
affirming an order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 24
of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 ("the Rent Act 1999").
3. The background facts leading to this Petition can be summarised
as under:
3.1 The Petitioner claimed to have booked two flats, i.e. Flat Nos. 906
and 907 in a project "Mohan Mansion", then being developed by M/s
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
Monish Builders, of which Kishor Advani-Respondent No. 5 was the
authorized representative. The Petitioner had parted with consideration.
An Agreement for Sale came to be executed in respect of Flat No. 906 on
23rd July 2015. An allotment letter was issued in respect of Flat No. 907.
However, the Respondent No.5 failed to deliver the possession of Flat
No. 906, as agreed, and execute an Agreement for Sale in respect of Flat
No. 907.
3.2 On account of the failure on the part of the Respondent No. 5, the
Petitioner started to demand the refund of the part consideration paid by
the Petitioner. At that stage, the Petitioner asserts, the Respondent No. 5
introduced the Petitioner to Nisha More (R3) and her husband. The
couple agreed to give their Flat i.e., Flat No. 101, A Wing, in the same
project to the Petitioner on the condition that the Respondent No. 5
would pay the licence fee to Respondent No.3. Accordingly, a Leave and
Licence Agreement came to be executed on 10 th August 2016. The term
of licence was two years. The licence fee was fixed as Rs.25,000/- per
month security deposit of Rs.50,0000/- was also paid.
3.3 The Petitioner asserts, the Leave and Licence Agreement came to
be renewed on multiple occasions. The last Agreement was executed on
20th February 2020 on the same terms and conditions, for the term
commencing from 15th April 2020 to 14th March 2021.
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
3.4 The Petitioner claimed that the licence fee was paid by the
Petitioner to Respondent No.3 through Kishor Advani (R5), yet, the
Respondent No. 3 falsely claimed that the Petitioner was in arrears of
licence fee from the month of September 2020, and addressed a notice
dated 7th December 2020, thereby terminating the licence and calling
upon the Petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the
subject premises.
3.5 It is the claim of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 5 had
undertaken to pay the licence fee and had, in fact, paid the licence fee to
the Respondent No.3. The latter was aware of the nature of the
transaction between the parties and had agreed to give the premises on
licence on the condition that the licence fee would be paid by the
Respondent No.5. Yet, the Respondent No.3 raised the dispute.
3.6 Eventually, the Respondent No.3 filed an Application under
Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act 1999, being Eviction Application
No. 106 of 2021. The Petitioner filed an Application for leave to defend.
3.7 By an order dated 23rd February 2022, the Competent Authority
declined to grant the leave to defend. On the very day, by a separate
judgment and order, the Competent Authority allowed the said Eviction
Application and directed the Petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful
possession of subject premises and also directed the Petitioner to pay the
arrears of licence fee and make payment of the licence fee at double the
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
agreed rate of licence fee from 15 th March 2021 till the delivery of
possession of the subject premises to the Respondent No.3, as damages.
3.8 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a Revision before the
Additional Commissioner, Kokan Revenue Division, under Section 44 of
the Rent Act 1999. By the impugned order, the Revisional Authority
dismissed the Revision Application concurring with the view of the
Competent Authority that the Petitioner was in the occupation of the
subject premises, after the expiry of the term of licence, and was,
therefore, liable to be evicted from the subject premises.
3.9 Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ
jurisdiction.
4. I have heard Mr Sauirsh Shetye, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, and Mr. Bharat Thorat, the learned Counsel for Respondent
No. 3, Mr. Hamid Mulla, the learned AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
and Mr. Ganesh Singh, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I also perused
the material on record.
5. Mr. Shetye, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that
the Competent Authority as well as the Revisional Authority were in
error in not appreciating the attendant circumstances of the case in a
correct perspective. The Authorities have proceeded on the sole premise
that there were registered Leave and Licence Agreements between the
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
Petitioner and Respondent No.3 and thus misdirected themselves in not
appreciating the circumstances in which the said Agreements came to be
executed, and the consent of the Respondent No.3 for such arrangement.
6. Mr. Shetye urged that, in the circumstances of the case, the
Respondent No. 5 was, in a sense, landlord of the subject premises. An
endeavour was made to place reliance on documents to show the
understanding among the parties as regards the real nature of the
transaction, and the payment of licence fee by the Respondent No. 5 to
Respondent No.3. In the totality of circumstance, according to Mr.
Shetye, the transaction in question was not that of a licence, pure and
simple.
7. Mr. Shetye would urge that the possession of the Petitioner over
the subject premises is referable to the interest of the Petitioner in the
subject premises, which emanated from the transaction between the
Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5. Brushing aside the overwhelming
material, the Competent Authority could not have passed an order of
eviction, appreciating the case in an over simplistic manner, was the
thrust of the submission of Mr. Shetye.
8. To buttress these submissions, Mr. Shetye placed reliance on the
judgments of this Court in the case of Snehal Shailesh Borana Vs
Additional Divisional Commissioner and Ors,1 Parineeta Chaudhari &
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2646.
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
Ors Vs Mohammed Hussain A. Furniturewalla 2 and Jogani And Sachdev
Developments Vs Lawrence D'Souza.3
9. In opposition to this, Mr. Bharat Thorat, the learned Counsel for
the Respondent No. 3 supported the impugned order. It was urged that
in the face of the successive registered Leave and Licence Agreements,
the Petitioner cannot be permitted to set up a different transaction
between the parties. At any rate, the Respondent No. 3 had no concern
with the alleged transaction between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.
4 and 5.
10. If at all there was any dispute between the Petitioner and
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the Petitioner could have invoked the
remedies qua Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Thus, the Petitioner has no
semblance of right to continue to occupy the subject premises after the
expiry of term of licence. Therefore, the Competent Authority as well as
the Revisional Authority were fully justified in negating an untenable
and imaginary claim of the Petitioner.
11. At the outset, it is necessary to note that there is no controversy
over the execution of the Leave and Licence Agreement dated 10 th
August, 2016, whereunder the subject premises was given on leave and
licence to the Petitioner for a term of 22 months commencing from 15 th
August 2016. Nor there is any controversy over the renewal of the
2 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 858.
3 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 369.
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
licence by executing fresh Agreements. The last renewal was under an
Agreement dated 20th February 2020, whereby the licence was renewed
from 15th April 2020 to 14th March 2021. The execution and contents of
these Leave and Licence Agreements have not been put in contest.
12. Evidently, an endavour was made by the Petitioner to put in
contest the character of the documents and not their contents. The tenor
of the defence of the Petitioner was that the subject premises was given
to the Petitioner as and by way of alternate accommodation for the
failure on the part of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, to deliver the
possession of the flats booked by the Petitioner in the project, Mohan
Mansion. And the Respondent No. 5 had agreed to pay the licence fee.
13. The question that wrenches to the fore is, whether in the face of
the Agreements for leave and licence, which incorporate the essential
terms of licence, the Petitioner could have been permitted to urge such a
ground and thereby protect the possession over the subject premises.
Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act 1999 reads as under:
"24. Landlord entitled to recover possession of
premises given on licence on expiry
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a
licensee, in possession or occupation of premises given to
him on license for residence shall deliver possession of
such premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of
licence; and on the failure of the licensee to so deliver the
possession of the licensed premises, a landlord shall be
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
entitled to recover possession of such premises from a
licensee, on the expiry of the period of licence, by making
an application to the Competent Authority, and the
Competent Authority, on being satisfied that the period of
licence has expired, shall pass an order for eviction of a
licensee.
(2) Any licensee who does not deliver possession of the
premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of licence
and continues to be in possession of the licensed premises
till he is dispossessed by the Competent Authority shall be
liable to pay damages at double the rate of the licence fee
or charge of the premises fixed under the agreement of
licence.
(3) The Competent Authority shall not entertain any
claim of whatever nature from any other person who is
not a licensee according to the agreement of licence.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this
section,--
(a) the expression "landlord" includes a
successor-in-interest who becomes the
landlord of the premises as a result of death
of such landlord; but does not include a
tenant or a sub-tenant who has given
premises on license;
(b) an agreement of licence in writing shall
be conclusive evidence of the fact stated
therein."
14. On a plain reading, it becomes abundantly clear that the
Competent Authority is a creature of the statute and has a limited
jurisdiction. The remit of the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority is
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
confined to determine the claim for eviction of a licencee filed by a
licensor-landlord. Sub Section (3) expressly bars the Competent
Authority from entertaining a claim of any third party who is not a
licensee. To arrive at the satisfaction that the period of licence has
expired, the Competent Authority can embark upon an enquiry as to:
i) Whether the landlord/licensor has given the subject
premises on licence for residential purpose?
ii) Whether there is a leave and licence agreement? Is it
registered?
iii) Whether the term of licence has expired?
iv) Whether the licensee has delivered the possession of the
licensed premises, after the expiry of term of licence?
15. Explanation (b) to Section 24 incorporates a presumption to the
effect that an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive
evidence of the facts stated therein.
16. Moreover, the provisions contained Act, 1999 envisage a
summary procedure for the determination of the applications filed
under Section 24 of the Act, 1999. Neither the question of title nor
existence of rights emanating from a different jural relationship asserted
by the licencee, in subject premises, can be legitimately inquired into in
such summary proceeding.
17. In the case of Surendra B. Agarwal and anr. vs. AMIL
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
Merchandising Pvt. Ltd,4 a learned Single Judge of this Court considered
the nature and import of the provisions contained under Section 24 of
the Act, 1999 and the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the
Competent Authority. It was, inter alia, held that the pendency of the
suit relating to the title of the licensor or for a declaration instituted by
the licensee claiming certain rights in the subject premises can not
preclude the Competent Authority from determining the application for
eviction under Section 24 of Act.
18. Observations in Paras 10 to 12 of the said judgment read as
under:
"10. Thus, the special provision has been made under the said
Act for evicting the licencees of premises given on licence for
residence.
A special procedure laid down under Chapter VIII governs the
application made under Section 24 of the said Act. The said Act
contemplates a summary disposal of the applications. By the
very nature of the proceedings as reflected from the aforesaid
statutory provisions, the jurisdiction of Competent Authority is
very limited. It can decide a dispute between a landlord
(lincesor) and the licencee.
It is obvious that considering the summary nature of the
proceedings, issue of title to the disputed premises can never be
decided in such proceedings. The sub-section 1 of Section 24
starts with non-obstante clause. Moreover Section 39 of the said
Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of Chapter VIII.
Therefore, pendency of a suit governed by Section 33 of the said
Act or a suit on title cannot prevent the competent authority
from deciding an application for eviction. There is no statutory
power vesting the Competent Authority to stay the proceedings
of the application under Section 24 of the said Act on the
ground of pendency of a civil suit relating to the property.
11. All that is required to be considered by the Competent
4 2010 (1) MhLJ 223.
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
Authority is whether the landlord has given the premises on
licence for residence and whether on expiry of period of licence
the licencee has not delivered the possession of the premises
subject matter of licence. Sub-section 3 of Section 24 of the said
Act specifically prevents the Competent Authority from
considering a claim of any stranger. The intention of legislature
of making an Agreement of Licence in writing as a conclusive
evidence of the facts stated therein cannot be altogether
ignored.
12. Hence, once application under Section 24 of the said Act is
filed by the licensor, the Competent Authority has to decide the
said application in accordance with law. The Competent
Authority is not really concerned with the title of the licensor. All
that is required to be examined is whether the applicant is a
licensor and whether the opponent is the licencee and whether
there was a Leave and Licence Agreement for residential use of
the suit premises. In a case where licencee is claiming some
other rights in relation to the premises in dispute, adjudication
of the said rights cannot be made by the Competent Authority.
Therefore, if a suit relating to the title of the licensor is pending
or if a suit for declaration filed by the licencee claiming
declaration of rights is pending, that is no ground to detain the
hearing of application under Section 24 of the said Act. The
pendency of suits in the Civil Court or other Competent Court
relating to the premises in dispute does not affect the
jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to decide the
application. While deciding the application under Section 24 of
the said Act the Competent Authority cannot decide the issue of
title."
(emphasis supplied)
19. The aforesaid being the position in law, the submission on behalf
of the petitioners that the Competent Authority ought to have embarked
upon an enquiry as regards the real nature of the jural relationship
between the parties in the light of the documents and material brought
on record by the petitioner, does not merit consideration.
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
20. What is of critical salience is the fact that, after the expiry of the
first agreement, the parties entered into successive leave and licence
agreements for further terms. In the face of these registered leave and
licence agreements, the presumption contained in the Explanation (b)
to Section 24 operated with full force and rigour. In a sense, the nature
of jural relationship formed by the first agreement was reinforced by the
successive agreements. Therefore, the impugned orders which proceed
on the premise of jural relationship of licensor and licencee, evidenced
by the multiple leave and licence agreements, cannot be faulted at.
21. The Petitioner continued to be in the occupation of the subject
premises since 2016 till 2021 in his capacity as the licensee, under the
said Agreements. The grounds sought to be urged by the Petitioner to
continue to occupy the subject premises stand on a weaker foundation.
Pertinently, the Petitioner does not claim that there was a different jural
relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3. In fact,
without disputing the jural relationship of licensor and licensee, the
Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was put in possession of the
subject premises by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as the later committed
default in their contractual obligations. Evidently, neither the
Respondent No. 3 is a party to the said transaction between the
Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Nor the Respondent No. 5
entered the frame of licence. The Respondent No.3 does not seem to
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
have any concern with the alleged transaction between the Petitioner
and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
22. The endeavor of Mr Shetye to urge that the documents on record,
especially the exchange of messages and credit of the amount to the
account of Respondent No.3 from the account of the Respondent No. 5,
do indicate the tacit arrangement between the parties, does not merit
countenance. Even if it is assumed that there was credit of some amount
by the Respondent No. 5 to the account of Respondent No.3, it does not
necessarily imply that the said amount was towards the licence fee
which was to be paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No.3. At any rate,
such payment does not dilute the nature of jural relationship formed by
and between the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 under the said Leave
and Licence Agreements.
23. The decision in the case of Snehal Borana (Supra), on which
reliance was placed by Mr. Shetye, does not advance the cause of the
Petitioner as in that case, after the expiry of the licence, the Petitioner
therein was found to be in the occupation of the premises on the
strength of an Agreement for Sale executed by the erstwhile licensor.
Clearly, the jural relationship between the parties in that case had
changed pursuant to an Agreement for Sale executed by the erstwhile
licensor, and the possession of the Petitioner therein over the premises
became referable to the Agreement for Sale under the licence.
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
24. The decisions in the cases of Parineeta Chaudhari (Supra) and
Jogani and Sachdev Developments (Supra) have no application at all to
the facts of the case at hand.
25. The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that the
Competent Authority was wholly justified in returning the finding that
the Petitioner continued to occupy the subject premises after the expiry
of the term of licence without any semblance of right. In the
circumstances of the case, and having regard to the nature of defence
taken by the Petitioner, the direction for the payment of compensation
double the agreed licenced fee appeared to be fully justifiable. Instead of
proceeding against the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for enforcement of their
contractual obligations, the Petitioner has unjustifiably withheld the
subject premises. Therefore, the Revisional Authority rightly declined to
interfere with the order passed by the Competent Authority.
26. Reulstantly, in exercise of the supervisory writ jurisdiction, this
court does not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order
27. Hence the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The Petition stands dismissed with costs.
(ii) Rule discharged.
-WP-13166-2024+.DOC
(iii) In view of the disposal of the Petition, Interim
Application No. 13053 of 2024 also stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
