BAJONJI DINSHAJI ENGINEER Vs. AMY DHUNJISHA GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) This appeal arises out of an application submitted by the appellants under Section 13-A (2 of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Section 13-A was inserted in the Bombay Rent Control Act by the Maharashtra Act No. 18 of 1987. The case of the appellants is that Respondents 1 and 2 are licensees in respect of a flat measuring 610 sq. feet in a building that has been constructed by the appellants. It is claimed that the said licence has been terminated by notice and proceedings (LE Suit No. 7 of 1988 have been initiated before the competent authority, Konkan Division, Bombay, forrecovery of possession of the flat from the respondents. Before the competent authority, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the competent authority to entertain the application on the ground that the provisions of Section 13-A (2 are applicable only to licences granted after the coming into force of the said provision and since the licence of the respondents was granted earlier, the said provision could not be applied. The said objection was rejected by the competent authority by order dated 6/7/1990, and it was held that the provisions of Section 13-A (2 were applicable to licences granted prior to the coming into force of the said provision provided the proceedings were initiated after the said provision came into force. The respondents filed a petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 4608 of 1990 in the Bombay High court under Article 227 of the Constitution wherein they assailed the correctness of the said view of the competent authority. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge of the High court has affirmed the view of the competent authority that the provisions of Section 13-A (2 were applicable in the present case even though licence was granted prior to the coming into force of the said provision since the proceedings were initiated after the said provision came into force. The High court has, however, considered the question of maintainability of the application submitted by the appellants on the ground that there was no valid termination of the licence granted in favour of Respondents 1 and 2. The High court has found that the licence could be terminated by the appellants only if Respondents 1 and 2 had committed breach of any of the terms of the licence and that no case has been made out by the appellants that the respondents had committed any breach of the agreement. On that view, the High court has held that the application submitted by the appellants was not maintainable and allowing the writ application the High court has dismissed the said application filed by the appellants under Section 13-A (2