ARUNA PANDIT Vs. RAVINDRA DATTATRAYA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present Petition is to the order dtd. 1/4/2024 passed by the Competent Authority rejecting the Application seeking leave to defend. Also challenged is the final eviction order passed by the Competent Authority on 1/4/2024 consequent to rejection of application for leave to defend.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. He raises four principal grounds of challenge to the impugned orders. Firstly, he submits that Petitioner No.1 being real sister of the Respondent, is excluded from the definition of term 'Licensee' under Sec. 7(5) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (Rent Act). Secondly, he would further invite my attention to the address disclosed by the Respondent in his application, which indicates that Petitioners and Respondent are residing together in the flat in question as members of the family. Thirdly, he would submit that in the application seeking leave to defend, the Petitioners have raised specific plea of alienation of family property by the Respondent by excluding the share of the Petitioners. That in view of specific pleas of inheritance and partition raised in the application, the Competent Authority ought to have held that the issues raised by the Petitioners warrant grant of leave to defend. Lastly, Mr. Sharma would submit that Petitioners have also pleaded the case of exercise of duress, on account of which the license agreement came to be executed between the parties. He would submit that Petitioners and Respondent have been residing together in the flat for over 20 years and that there was no need for the parties to execute the leave and license agreement. That the Application filed by the Petitioners specifically raises a defence that the agreement is an outcome of duress.

(3.) On the above four broad points Mr. Sharma would submit that the defences raised by the Petitioners are arguable and plausible defences. He would submit that under the guise of examining the defences raised by the Petitioners, the Competent Authority has adjudicated upon merits of such defences, which is impermissible while deciding application under Sec. 43(4)(b) of the Rent Act. Lastly, Mr. Sharma would contend that the Application has not been decided as per directions of this Court in order dtd. 27/9/2023 passed in Writ Petition No.12037 of 2020.