SURESH K MEHTA Vs. S B CHINCHOLIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Civil Revision Application filed under section 31-F of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, Rent Control Act), the petitioner impugns two orders passed on 1-3-96 by the Competent Authority, Mumbai. By the first order dated 1-3-96, the Competent Authority refused petitioner leave to defend the proceedings in Civil Application No. 71/95 filed by respondent No. 2 herein under section 13-A (2) of the Rent Control Act and by the subsequent order of the even date, the Competent Authority ordered eviction of the petitioner from the disputed flat and also granted ancillary reliefs.

(2.) FACTS first. The respondent No. 2 herein Mrs. Brijseth (for short, landlady-licencor) instituted the proceedings under section 13-A (2) of the Rent Control Act against the petitioner herein (for short, licencee) before the Competent Authority, Mumbai. She, inter-alia averred that she was the owner of flat No. 35, garage No. 54 in Block A of Sterling Apartments in Sterling Cooperative Housing Society Limited situated at 38, G. Deshmukh Marg, Bombay. By agreement of leave and licence dated 8th July 94, the landlady licencor gave permission to the licencee to use and occupy premises in question for residence in accordance with the terms and conditions reduced in writing in the said agreement, for a period of less than nine months from 8th July 94 to 31st March 95. The licencee furnished an interest free security deposit of Rs. 80 lacs for due performance and observance of the terms and conditions of the leave and licence agreement and this deposit was to be refunded to the licencee within one month of the expiry of the term of leave and licence agreement and surrender of peaceful, vacant possession of premises in question to the landlady licencor. The amount of Rs. 70,159 was also paid by licencee as sum of licence fee @ Rs. 8000/- p. m. Till the end of March 95 since the licencee was not able to secure alternative premises, the landlady licencor voluntarily extended the licence period by three months upto 30th June 95. The facts relating to earlier licence dated 23-1-1991 of flat No. 27 and its termination mutually on 1-4-1993 were also mentioned. Some correspondence ensued between the parties and ultimately when the licencee did not hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the disputed flat to the landlady licencor, she made application under section 13-A2 of the Rent Control Act on 25th September 1995. The licencee was served with the notice of the proceedings sometime on 25-9-95 and within prescribed time he made an application for leave to defend under section 31-E (4) (a) of the Rent Control Act. In the application for leave to defend the licencee set up the grounds that the application under section 13-A2 was misconceived and not maintainable and the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction because the parties had entered into an oral understanding for sale of the flat to the licencee for Rs. 88 lacs. According to licencee the amount of Rs. 80 lacs was not security or interest free deposit but was payment of part consideration of the sale price. The licencee stated that he had filed suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the suit flat on 22-6-95 before this Court. In the background of these facts, it was stated by the licencee in the application for leave to defend that there were certain triable issues including the relationship of licencor and licencee between the parties and whether the Court had jurisdiction to try the application and, therefore, leave to defend be granted.

(3.) THE Competent Authority did not find any substance in the application made by the licencee for leave to defend and accordingly rejected the application by the order dated 1-3- 96. The Competent Authority after rejecting the application for leave to defend proceeded on the merits of the application made by the landlady licencor and held that in view of the written leave and licence agreement dated 8-6-94 which is conclusive proof of facts stated therein it was apparent that she was owner and on expiry of period of licence the landlady licencor was entitled to get back possession of the disputed flat from the licencee and accordingly directed the licencee to handover vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises forthwith. The Competent Authority further directed to pay compensation @ Rs. 16,000/- p. m. double the rate of licence fee from 1-7-95 till the licencee hands over possession of the suit premises to the landlady licencor.