FULWANTI R. CHOPRA Vs. CHAINRAJ SONRAJ SINGHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Order dtd. 12/5/2017 passed by the learned Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Pune Division, Pune ("Competent Authority") in Application No.25 of 2012 as well as to the Order dtd. 28/5/2017 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune ("Additional Commissioner") in Revision Application No.348 of 2017.

(2.) It is the contention of Mr. Bidkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Competent Authority has relied on certain other aspects namely Deed of Assignments which have been executed with respect to the suit premises and held that the Leave and Licence Agreement has been signed by the Petitioner without having the ownership and possession over the suit property and on the basis of such observations dismissed the Application filed before the Competent Authority. The order of Competent Authority is confirmed by the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner. It is submitted by Mr. Bidkar, learned Counsel that the said observations are contrary to Explanation (b) to Sec. 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ("Rent Act"). He relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Jasmeet Hoon v. Rita Johar, 2000 SCC OnLine Bom 524 : (2001) 1 Mah LJ 649 and AMI Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 3 Mah LJ 257 : (2014) 3 Bom CR 248. He submitted that in view of Explanation (b) to Sec. 24, an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein and therefore the Competent Authority and the Additional Commissioner could not have recorded the said finding.

(3.) On the other hand, Ms. Bhansali, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported the impugned Orders.