[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Shaikh Mohammed Shakoor vs Mohammed Iqbal Haji Ameeruddin Raja ... on 3 February, 2026

Author: Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar

                                                                                     502-WP-16700-2025.doc


                                                                                              Arjun

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                               WRIT PETITION NO.16700 OF 2025
         Digitally
         signed by     Shaikh Mohammed Shakoor                           ...Petitioner
         ARJUN
ARJUN
VITTHAL
         VITTHAL
         KUDHEKAR
                             Versus
KUDHEKAR Date:
         2026.02.03
                       Mohammed Iqbal Haji Ameeruddin Raja Shaikh & Anr. ...Respondents
         20:04:35
         +0530
                       _______________________________________________________________

                       Ms. Rehana Begum, for the Petitioner.
                       _______________________________________________________________

                                                         CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 03 FEBRUARY 2026

P.C.:

1. Heard Ms. Rehana Begum, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner.

2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India the challenge is to the Order dated 5th August

2022 passed by the learned Competent Authority, Rent Control Act

Court, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Eviction Application No.1 of 2022

as also the Order dated 15th April 2025 passed by the learned

Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in

Revision No.835 of 2024.

3. By the impugned Order dated 5th August 2022 passed by the

learned Competent Authority, the Petitioner has been directed to

handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the subject premises

502-WP-16700-2025.doc

and further also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- from 1st June 2019 to 31st

December 2021 within 30 days from the Order and to pay the double of

licenses fee per month from 1st January 2022 till handing over the

vacant possession of the subject premises.

4. The said Order was confirmed by the learned Additional

Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai by dismissing the

Revision No.835 of 2024 filed by the present Petitioner. These Orders

have been passed, as admittedly the Petitioner has executed a registered

Leave and License Agreement dated 31st December 2018 with the

Respondent.

5. Explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control

Act, 1999 ("MRC Act") is very specific which provides that an

agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the fact

stated therein.

6. It is required to be noted that as per the settled legal position

leave and licence agreement, is conclusive evidence of the facts stated

therein and no other evidence can be led inconsistent with the said facts

by either of the parties and is conclusive between the parties of the facts

stated therein. This Court in the case of Ramesh Ramrao Hate v. Parvez

B. Bhesania 1, held in Paragraph No.9 as under :-

"9. Once the legislature by explanation (b) of Section 13- A(2) has provided that a written agreement of licence shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, it provided a 1 1997(1) Mh.LJ295

502-WP-16700-2025.doc

special rule of evidence for the purpose of proceedings under section 13-A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The intention of the legislature was to give finality to the existence of a fact occurring in the written agreement of leave and licence. In other words legislature intended to shut out any other evidence which would detract from the conclusiveness of that evidence. The object of expression 'conclusive evidence of fact stated therein' is aimed to give finality to the establishment of the existence of the fact or facts stated in the written leave and licence agreement from the proof of another. The argument of learned counsel for the Petitioner that explanation (b) only makes the written agreement of licence conclusive evidence as regards the licensor and not against the licensee is very difficult to be appreciated. Once it is provided by the legislature that an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, it prohibits from leading any other evidence which may affect the conclusiveness of that evidence. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Somawanti case (supra) is clear answer to the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner wherein the Apex Court has held that once the law says that certain evidence is conclusive it shuts out any other evidence which would detract from the conclusiveness of that evidence. Not only that when a certain evidence is made conclusive evidence, it prohibits any other evidence to be led which may detract from the conclusiveness of that evidence, but also the court has no option to hold the existence of the fact otherwise when such evidence is made conclusive. Once an execution of the agreement of leave and licence is not disputed before the Competent Authority in an application under section 13-A(2) based on such leave and licence agreement, it is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein and no other evidence can be led inconsistent with the said facts by either of the parties and is conclusive between the parties of the facts stated therein. The Competent Authority has no option but to hold that the facts stated therein do exist. Same position holds good also in a case where the execution of written agreement of leave and licence is denied and the Competent Authority after recording evidence reaches the conclusion that execution of such agreement for leave and licence has been proved by the licensor."

(Emphasis added)

502-WP-16700-2025.doc

7. Although the above discussion is concerning Explanation (b) of

Section 13-A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates

Control Act, 1947 the same is squarely applicable to Explanation (b) to

Section 24 of the MRC Act, which is analogous provision, which reads

as under :-

"Section 24 : Landlord entitled to recover possession of premises given on license on expiry

(1) ...

(2) ...

(3) ...

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-

(a) ...

(b) an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein."

(Emphasis added)

7. In the above background of the matter, it is required to consider

the submissions of Ms. Rehana Begum, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner that the subject flat has been purchased by Respondent No.1

by using the proceeds of the crime and the Respondent is not the owner

of the property in question. However, in view of Explanation (b) to

Section 24 and in view of the above legal position, source of fund for

acquisition of the subject flat will be totally irrelevant and outside the

scope of inquiry contemplated under Section 24 of the MRC Act. The

502-WP-16700-2025.doc

position on record shows that the agreement of leave and licence is

registered document, the licence period is 1st January 2019 to 30th

November 2019. No evidence which is contrary to the terms and

conditions of the leave and licence can be allowed to be led. Therefore,

no interference in the impugned Orders are warranted.

8. However, one factor which is required to be taken into

consideration is Affidavit which Mr. Maruti Sangle, Police Inspector

attached to Economic Offences Wing, Unit-VIII, Mumbai has filed in

Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No.20543 of 2025. The said Affidavit

has been filed concerning CR No.102 of 2019 registered with EOW,

Unit-III, Mumbai. Paragraph Nos.4 to 10 of the said Affidavit dated 23rd

January 2026 filed in Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No.20543 of 2025

are very relevant and read as under :-

"4. I say that the prosecution case in brief is as under:-

a. That the original complainant namely Mr. Laxman Subhash Lokre lodged FIR with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai inter alia stating therein that Accused directors, promoters and agents formed companies namely Gold Express, Gold Express Urban Co-Op Credit Society, Gold Express Enterprises having situated at Shop Number 13/B, Building Number 83, Happy Om Estate, Poonam Sagar Complex, Mira Road (E), Thane and at B/5, Shital Plaza, Shital Nagar, Opp. Sector 6, Near Dena Bank, Mira Road (E), Thane. The said companies floated a scheme and offered good return on the investment made by the respective investors by way of letting out the amounts on interest basis and this indicates that the said company has accepted necessary funds by offering interest however, subsequently the said company has failed to make payment

502-WP-16700-2025.doc

of any interest as well as failed to refund the principal amounts. It is further case of the orig. complainant that the said company during the period from December 2016 to 02/10/2019 lured the investors by assuring huge interest on deposits of the investors. It is further case of the orig.

complainant that the said companies and its owners promoters, agents accepted huge funds i.e. Rs. 7.45 Crores from the orig. complainant and from other 63 investors during the period from December 2016 to 02/10/2019 and thereby cheated him by committing criminal breach of trust by hatching criminal conspiracy. Thus, the accused persons committed the aforesaid offence.

b. On the basis of the complaint, lodged by the Orig. Complainant, offence vide CR. No. 786/2019 u/secs. 406, 409, 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code r/w. secs.3, 4 of M.PI.D. Act, 1999, r/w. secs. 3, 4, 5, 6 of PCMC Act, 1978, came to be registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai on 02.10.2019 and which was subsequently transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Unit - VII, Mumbai where the said Offence was registered vide CR. No. 102/2019 u/secs. 406, 409, 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code r/w. secs. 3, 4 of M.P.I.D. Act, 1999, r/w. Secs. 3, 4, 5, 6 of PCMC Act, 1978, for investigation.

c. I say that after completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in Hon'ble Special Sessions Court, Court No. 7, Mumbai in the year 2020 and a supplementary charge sheet in the year 2022 vide Spl. Case No. 294/2020 against the accused directors, promoters and agents of aforesaid companies.

5. I say that properties like flats and bank accounts are involved in the present crime which came to be secured in order to protect the interest of the investors are as follows.

A) Immovable Property

1 Room No. 103, B-Wing, Paramount Society, 90 Feet Nagar, Kurla West, Sakinaka, Mumbai-72.

2 E 1/4. K. K. Tiwari Chawl, Ghas Compound, Kajupada Sakinaka, Mumbai-72.

502-WP-16700-2025.doc

3 Asmini Chawl Room No.8, Star glass Company, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai.

4 Shikrupa Niwas B/11 or B/H. Star glass, Company, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai.

5 Raw House No. 24, Plot No. 1, Gaurav Enclave, Mira Road East, Thane - 401107.

6 Room No 106, First Floor, B Wing, Asmita Regency, Phase 2, Mira Road East, Thane.

7 Raj lifestyle, Gala No.42 A, Bhayinder Road, GCC Club, Hatkesh Ind. Estate, Mira Road, Thane - 401107. (Shop)

B) Movable Property

1. Canara Bank Bank Account No.2733101002764

2. Bank of India Bank Account No. 002010110010768

3. HDFC Bank Bank Account No.50100070585402

4. State Bank of India Bank Account No. 20136530842

6. I say that in order to publish the properties in the official Gazette via Notification under section 4 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 the correspondence was made on 19-03-2021 and 21-12-2023 and letters has been sent by the Collector dated 06/05/2021 and 11/01/2024 to Home Dept. Pol-15, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

7. I further say that reminder letters vide no. 601/2024 on 27/05/2024, 646/2024 on 12/06/2024, 150/2026 on 12/01/2026, 182/2024 on 17/01/2026 too were sent to Home Dept. Pol-15 Mantralaya, Mumbai to publish the properties in the official Gazette via Notification.

8. It is true to say that after receipt of the aforesaid correspondence the notification has not yet published.

502-WP-16700-2025.doc

9. I say that according to the correspondence received from the Home Dept. Pol-15 Mantralaya, Mumbai vide no. Nyaypra-2026/Pra. Kra.08/Pol-15 dated 19/01/2026 the process of scrutinizing the said proposal regarding the seizure of the 7 properties and issuing the notification is underway it is likely to take at least 8 weeks for the proposal to get the approval of the Law and Judiciary Department of the government.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, I most humbly pray that this Hon. Court may be pleased to grant 8 weeks time to publish the properties in the official Gazette via Notification."

(Emphasis added)

9. Thus, prima facie, it is clear that the State of Maharashtra is

taking steps to issue notification as contemplated under Section 4 of the

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial

Establishments) Act, 1999 inter alia with the subject flat.

10. Therefore, it is the submission of Ms. Rehana Begum, learned

Counsel for the Petitioner that the possession of the said flat has to be

taken by Respondent No.2 - The State of Maharashtra, Through

Investigation Officer, EOW, Unit-8, Mumbai. On instructions, she further

states that the Petitioner is ready and willing to handover the possession

to the Respondent No.2 - The State of Maharashtra.

11. Thus, in view of the above position, issue notice to the