AMIT B DALAL Vs. RAJESH K DOCTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some of the questions arising in these Writ Petitions are common and, therefore, the Petitions are being finally disposed of by a common judgment. In both the Writ Petitions, the parties were put to notice that the Petitions will be decided finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) Both the Petitions arise out of the order of eviction passed under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(3.) In the Writ Petition No.2832 of 2009, the dispute relates to a residential flat more particularly described in Paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition. An application for eviction was filed before the Competent Authority by the 1st Respondent against the Petitioner. The 2nd Respondent herein was the 2nd Opponent in the said application. In the application for eviction, the case made out by the 1st Respondent is that she was authorized by the 2nd Respondent to file the said application under Section 24 of the said Act of 1999 for possession of the suit premises described in Paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition. The 1st Respondent claims to be the purchaser of the suit premises from the 2nd Respondent. The case of the 2nd Respondent is that he was the owner of the suit premises and that the 1st Respondent purchased the suit premises from him by a Registered Sale Deed dated 23rd February, 2007. According to the case made out in the application for eviction, the Petitioner was inducted as a licensee in respect of the suit premises under an agreement of leave and licence dated 25th April, 2006 executed by and between the 2nd Respondent and the 1st Respondent. The period of licence was to expire on 24th February, 2007. The agreed licence fee was Rs.3,300/per month. The case made out in the application for eviction is that the Petitioner requested for accommodation till 31st March, 2007 on the ground that there is an engagement of his daughter. It is claimed that on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 23rd February, 2007, the Petitioner became licensee of the 1st Respondent. As the Petitioner failed to vacate the suit premises, the 1st Respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the said Act of 1999.