MANJU SINGH Vs. JANKI RAMRAO AMMANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/owner of the property has challenged the order dated 14-8-2008 passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Mumbai on the application filed by the petitioner/applicant for directing the respondent/licensee to deposit the amount of compensation in the Court till final disposal of the proceedings. The Competent Authority has dismissed the said application by holding that the applicant can recover the amount by executing the decree; that the foundation of the relationship of licensor-licensee is hotly disputed by the respondent. The relevant section for the purpose of adjudicating the issue in question is Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, hereinafter called as "the said Act", which read as under:

(2.) ONCE the provision makes it clear, as referred above, that the licensee in spite of the expiry of the licence agreement and notice does not deliver possession of the premises to the landlord and continues to be in possession of the licensed premises, therefore, till he is dispossessed by the Competent Authority, he should pay damages at double the rate of the licence fee or charge of the premises fixed under the agreement of license.

(3.) THE rejection of the application of the landlord on the ground that the relationship of licensor-licensee is hotly disputed by the respondent is also in no way sufficient reason to overlook the mandate of the said section, as referred above. In such matters there is no question of deciding the rights, as contested or disputed and/or raised by the respondent/licensee. Even if there is such dispute raised, still as per the provision of the law such person after the expiry of the leave and licence period need to pay double the amount of the agreed rent/occupation or licence fee.