RAMESH RAMRAO HATE Vs. PARVEZ B BHESANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Application filed under section 31-F of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, Bombay Rent Act) is directed against the order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Bombay on 10th May, 1996 in Case No. 19/95 against the present petitioner in the proceedings under section 13a (2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) ON 28-12-1993 an agreement for leave and licence was entered into between Mr. Parvez Bamansha Bhesania respondent No. 1 herein (for short, licencor) and the present petitioner Ramesh Ramrao Hate (for short, licensee) permitting the licensee to use and occupy flat No. 32, 8th floor, Jai Jalaram Co-operative Housing Society, Kharkar Alley, Thane (West) owned by licencor for a period of 11 months from 28th December, 93 to 27th November, 94. The licensee was required to pay compensation for use and occupation of licenced premises @ Rs. 3,863/- p. m. . The licensee also deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the licencor as a guarantee for the due performance and observation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The licensee did not handover possession of the flat in question to the licencor on expiry of the licence period necessiating filing of an application under section 13a (2) of the Bombay Rent Act by the licencor against the license before the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Bombay. The said application was based on the facts that the flat in question was given on the basis of written leave and licence agreement dated 28-12-93 for a period of 11 months upto 27-11-94 and on expiry of the licence period the licensee was duty bound to hand-over peaceful vacant possession but he did not vacate the premises in question on expiry of the licence. An order of eviction was thus, sought by the licencor against the licensee from the Competent Authority.

(3.) THE licensee filed written statement to the application and set-up the plea that in fact the premises in question were given to him on rent and he was tenant of the disputed premises but the tenancy document was styled as leave and licence agreement. It was also set-out by the licensee in the written statement that his claim of tenancy is already subjudice in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane in the suit filed by him for declaration, injunction and for fixation of standard rent and, therefore, the application under section 13a (2) made by the licencor before the Competent Authority was misconceived.