GOVIND HOTCHAND SANI Vs. ANITA BAGGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this writ petition takes exception to the judgment passed by the Competent Authority, Pune Division, Pune on 29-2-1992 whereby the said Competent Authority rejected the application filed by the Petitioner under Section-13 (A-2) of the Bombay Rent Hotel Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'Bombay Rent Control Act'). The premises in question details of which have been given in paragraph-1 of the application are situated at La-shanz Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 3/1, Boat Club Road, Pune, and, the Petitioner is member of La-shanz Co-operative Housing Society Limited, and, according to him he owns the said premises. The case of the Petitioner set-out in the application under Section-13 (A-2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, is that the said premises were given on licence to one Shri Jeet alias Jagjeet Bagga (since deceased) on mutual agreed terms. The said Jeet Bagga expired in November-86 and is survived by the present Respondent Mrs.Anita Bagga and two children. The case of the Petitioner further is that the said licencee continued to occupy the premises in question on licence renewed from time to time and the last of such agreement was executed on 15-8-1990 and according to that licence, the licencee was to occupy premi-ses upto 14th July-91 only. On 6th July-91 the Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent licencee herein that duration of licence granted to her was due to expire on 14-7-91 and she should hand-over vacant and peaceful possession of the licence premises. Since despite that letter dated 6-7-91 the Respondent did not vacate the premises, the application under Section-13 (A-2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, was made and the cause of action set-out in the application was for recovery of possession for the licence premises from Respondent when she failed to vacate the premises in question.

(2.) THE Respondent traversed the averments made in the application by filing written statement before the Competent Authority and plea was set-out that her husband Jeet alias Jagjeet Bagga was tenant in the disputed premises and the document was only styled as leave and licence agreement. According to Respondent, during life-time of her husband and thereafter she has been occupying the premises in question as monthly tenant. The Respondent denied execution of any leave and licence agreement dated 15-8-90 as alleged by the present Petitioner.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the application under Section 13 (A-2) was rejected vide impugned order dated 29-2-1992.