PRAKASH H JAIN Vs. MARIE FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The appellant, who got an order in his favour before the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) condoning the delay in filing an application to defend the eviction proceedings and also consequent leave to defend, but suffered an order against him before a learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay, has filed this appeal.

(3.) The appellant was said to have been allowed to use the property in question as a licencee and a deed for the purpose was executed on 10-7-1999 between the parties, the period being for one year from the date of the deed. According to the respondent, the said leave and licence agreement expired on 9-6-2000. Though, according to the appellant, in March 2001 after expiry of the period as noticed above, a further agreement was executed permitting the appellant to use the property for commercial purposes for a period of five years, such a claim is being disputed and it is not only unnecessary but we are not also entering into any exercise to deal with the correctness or otherwise of such claim having regard to the limited issue that is before us in these proceedings. The respondent filed an application under S. 24 read with S. 42 of the Act before the Competent Authority (Rent Act) Konkan Division, Mumbai, for eviction of the appellant and also for compensation on the ground that the leave/licence has expired by efflux of time. The property is said to be a residential property and fully furnished and the further grievance of the respondent appears to be that the property has been an unauthorisedly used for commercial purposes as well. The said petition for eviction seems to have been filed before the Competent Authority on 9-5-2001. Summons to the respondent therein, the appellant herein, was said to have been served on 19-5-2001 and the appellant entered appearance on 29-5-2001 before the said Authority. He appears to have filed an application to summon for a document supported by an affidavit. It is necessary to state even at this stage and it is the common case of parties that in the said application, there was no prayer seeking to grant leave to defend the proceedings for eviction. As a matter of fact, such an application was said to have been filed only on 10-8-2001 with an application for condoning the delay in filing the application seeking for grant of leave to defend the proceedings for eviction. It is also stated that earlier application filed on 29-5-2001 with an affidavit for summoning some document was said to have been also withdrawn as not pressed on 10-8-2001. Overruling the objections of the respondent, the Competent Authority by its order dated 20-9-2001 allowed the application for condonation of delay filed on 5-8-2001. As a consequence whereof, the application for grant of leave to defend the eviction proceedings seems to have been separately considered and orders passed on 17-1-2002 granting leave to defend and directing the written statement in the eviction proceedings to be filed within the time stipulated therein.