AFSAR SHAIKH Vs. P.N. KAUL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Competent Authority, Pune Division, Pune by its order dated 14.3.1989 in M.A. No. 27 of 1988, P.N. Kaul and Anr. v. Afsar Shaikh, allowed the application for eviction filed under Section 13A -2 of the Bombay Rent Control Act, and, held that the Applicants were entitled to recover possession of the premises in question and ordered the eviction of the occupant -Petitioner herein. The Competent Authority also directed the occupant to pay damages at double the rate of licence fee or charge of the premises fixed under the agreement of licence with effect from 1.7.1986. This order passed by the Competent Authority is under challenge in this Civil Revision Application.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 herein Mrs. Raj Dulari Ganju (for short, 'licensor') and her caretaker made an application for eviction under Section 13A -2 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'Rent Control Act') against the petitioner herein (for short 'licensee'). In the said application it was averred that the premises in question i.e. Flat No. 2 on plot No. 52 Survey No. 604/1605 + 608, Lulla Nagar, Pune was given to the licensee on licence for a period of 33 months with effect from 1.10.1983 and written leave and licence agreement was executed between the parties. According to the licensor, the licence fee was Rs. 900/ - and compensation charges for use and occupation every month was Rs. 600/ -. After expiry of the licence period though the licensor requested the landlord to vacate the premises, the licensee did not vacate. In the application, it was averred that cause of action to file application arose on 1.8.1986 when the term of licence expired and licensee did not vacate the premises and continued to occupy it illegally. The licensor thus prayed that decree for eviction be passed against the licensee and she be directed to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit flat and licensee be ordered to pay double the agreed compensation for the period of occupation alter the expiry of the licence. The said application was contested by the licensee and a plea was set out that he was not licensee but tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 600/ -. According to licensee he continued to occupy premises in question on expiry of the period of 33 months as tenant in the disputed premises. The licensee also set -up the plea that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the application since he was tenant and even otherwise the provisions of Section 13A -2 of the Rent Control Act were only applicable to the agreement of leave and licence executed on or after 1.10.1987.

(3.) MR . Dalvi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that on the face of the admitted facts that leave and licence agreement was executed on 19.10.1983 effective from 1.10.1983 for a period of 33 months and the said licence ended on 30th June, 1986, no licence was subsisting on the date Section 13A -2 was introduced in Rent Control Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 13A -2 of the Rent Control Act were not attracted. Mr. Dalvi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit also that in application the licensor has averred that cause of action to file the application arose on 1.8.1986 when the period of licence expired and when the licensee did not vacate the premises and continued to occupy it illegally and, therefore, on the face of this pleading, Section 13A -2 was not attracted. Mr. Dalvi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the Competent Authority also held while deciding issue No. 4 that the agreement provided the period of 33 months w.e.f. 1.10.1983 and that period expired before the commencement of Section 13A -2 and, therefore. In view of the decision of this Court in Ravindranath H. Hiremath (Lt. Col.) v. Prashantkumar Buttan, (1994) 2 Mh.L.J. 1731, the order passed by the Competent Authority cannot be sustained.