RAVINDRA NAINSUKH SANGHAVI Vs. LAXMAN RANGNATH NAGARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents before this Court are the legal heirs of the original applicant, who was the landlord and owner of the suit property. The present revision applicant is the original opponent and admittedly he is residing in the premises of the respondent. The landlord filed Miscellaneous Application No.33 of 1993 under Section 13A(2) of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (In brief 'The Bombay Rent Act') for possession of the suit premises. According to him, an agreement of leave and licence had taken place between himself and the present applicant and as per that agreement, Block No.4 admeasuring 467 sq.ft. carpet area, having three rooms, balcony and toilet bathroom situated on the City Survey No.617/B was given to the present applicant for residential purpose. Agreement was entered into on 4th June, 1992. Leave and licence agreement was reduced to writing and was executed by the parties on the stamp paper. Period of licence was 11 months beginning from 4-6-92 and was to come to an end on 30th April, 1993. The revision applicant/licencee was to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per month towards the compensation, which was to be known as licence fee. On expiry of the licence period, the licensee had to remove his articles and materials from the house. According to the landlord in spite of expiry of the licence period, the licencee had not vacated the premises. Therefore, he filed proceeding before the Competent Authority under the Bombay Rent Act for possession of the premises.

(2.) The licensee or the present applicant contested the said application on several grounds. Firstly, according to him, he was not licensee but the tenant and agreement for tenancy had taken place between the parties. He had also deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the respondent. The rent was agreed to be Rs.1,500/- per month. From June, 1993, landlord was claiming Rs.2,500/- per month as rent and he had threatened to evict him from the premises. In view of this, the applicant had filed Civil Suit No.899 of 1993 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing him from the premises without following due process of law. In that matter, temporary injunction was granted in favour of the present applicant. He also contended that the description of the suit premises given in the application filed by the landlord was wrong. He is not in occupation of block no.4 but the block no.3. According to him, as there was no agreement of leave and licence but of lease, the Competent Authority did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application and the jurisdiction will lie with the Small Cause Court.

(3.) The landlord examined himself and several other witnesses. The present applicant also examined himself and one Gulabsing as witness in respect of his claim. After hearing the parties, the learned Competent Authority came to the conclusion that there was written leave and licence agreement between the parties and, therefore, the present applicant is the licensee and the respondent is the licensor. He rejected the plea of the present applicant that he was tenant or that there was lease agreement between the parties. With these findings, application filed by the landlord came to be allowed and the present applicant was directed to vacate the premises and give possession thereof to the landlord. This order passed by the Competent Authority has been challenged by the present applicant before this Court by filing Revision Application.