AFSAR SHAIKH Vs. P N KAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Competent Authority, Pune Division, Pune by its order dated 14-3-89 in M. A. No. 27 of 1988, P. N. Kaul and another v. Afsar Sheikh, allowed the application for eviction filed under section 13a (2) of 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, licencor) 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, licencee ). 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 licencee on licence for a period of 33 months with effect from 1-10-83 and written leave and licence agreement was executed between the parties. According to the licencor, the licence fee was Rs. 900/- and compensation charges for use and occupation every month was Rs. 600/ -. After expirty of the licence period though the licencor requested the landlord (sic) to vacate the premises, the licencee did not vacate. In the application, it was averred that cause of action to file application arose on 1-8-86 when the term of licence expired and licencee did not vacate the premises and continued to occupy it illegally. The licencor thus prayed that decree for eviction be passed against the licencee and she be directed to handover peaceful vacant possession of the suit flat and licencee be ordered to pay double the agreed compensation for the period of occupation after the expiry of the licence. The said application was contested by the licencee and a plea was set-out that he was not licencee but a tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 600/ -. According to licencee he continued to occupy premises in question on expiry of the period of 33 months as tenant in the disputed premises. The licencee 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.) THE Competent Authority held that it has jurisdiction to try the matter and provisions of section- 13a (2) were applicable. Relying on Explanation (b) of section 13a (2) to the effect that the agreement of leave and licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein, the Competent Authority held that it cannot go into the question raised by the licencee that he was tenant in the disputed premises on the face of the written agreement of leave and licence dated 1-10-1983. The Competent Authority, thus, passed the order of eviction and for payment of damages as already observed above.