PRAKASH GHEVARCHAND KOTHARI Vs. BALASAHEB SAKHARAM JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The present petition arises from the orders passed by the competent authority and revisional authority under the maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter called as "the said Act"). The challenge to the order of eviction passed by the competent authority and confirmed by the revisional authority is five fold. Firstly that, in terms of section 55 of the said Act, every agreement whether it is a lease or leave and licence should be in writing and registered under the Registration Act and in case of failure in that regard, there is presumption in favour of the tenant that an agreement is executed by the tenant or by the licensee as the case may be. Considering the same, and in the case in hand as no written agreement between the parties, in relation to the suit premises was produced, the authorities below ought to have considered that the petitioner's claim of tenancy in respect of the suit premises was established and the respondent had failed to rebut the said presumption in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Secondly, that in terms of section 24 of the said Act, the eviction proceedings under the said act can be initiated only against those occupants of the premises in whose favour the licence continued to subsist on or after the enforcement of the said Act and not otherwise, and in the case in hand, it is the case of the respondent himself that the licence had come to an end about three years prior to 1996, whereas the proceedings were initiated in 2003. In that regard, reliance is placed in the decision of the learned Single Judge in the matter of (Mr, Afsar Shaikh Vs. Mr. P. N. Kaul and another) , 1997 (2) Bom. C. R. 456.