MADHUKAR FAKIRCHAND SALUNKE Vs. SURYAKANT MANIK RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this civil revision application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 11.9.1995 passed by the Competent Authority, Pune Division, Pune in M.A.No.2/95. The respondent - Suryakant filed an application under section 13(A)(2) of the Bombay Rent Act for an order against the petitioner to vacate the suit premises, which is a flat owned by the respondent Suryakant. It was claimed in the application that the petitioner is in possession of the flat as a licensee pursuant to the leave and licence agreement dated 25.12.1992. Petitioner who was joined as respondent to the application did not dispute execution of the agreement dated 25.12.1992. However, it was the case of the respondent that there was a subsequent agreement of sale of the same premises between the petitioner and the respondent and therefore, according to the petitioner his possession from 4.5.93 was that of prospective purchasor and not a licensee. The competent authority after considering the material on the record allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to vacate the suit premises. In this civil application this order is challenged by the licensee.

(2.) SHRI Shivade, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that even before the leave and licence agreement was signed, the petitioner had paid some amounts to the respondent and that thereafter on 4.5.1993 there was an agreement of sale between the parties. In the submission of Shri Shivade, the result of the agreement of sale is that the agreement of leave and licence is cancelled.

(3.) THE Civil application is, therefore, liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected.