SURENDRA B AGARWAL Vs. AML MERCHANDISING PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 17th January, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The petition arises out of proceedings of application under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(2.) With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to briefly refer to the facts of the case. The petitioners herein are applicants in an application filed under section 24 of the said Act and the respondent company in this petition is the respondent in the said application. The petitioners have described the suit premises subject matter of dispute in paragraph 3 of the application. It is stated that one Mrs. Najoo Behram Bhiwandiwala was the original owner of the larger property in which the suit premises are situated. The petitioners claim that by Deed of Conveyance dated 13th December, 2007 they have acquired a larger property from the said Mrs. Najoo Bhiwandiwala. The case of the petitioners is that under an earlier Agreement dated 28th February, 2002 executed by the said Mrs. Najoo, M/s. Dream Trading Company Pvt Ltd was inducted as a licensee in the suit premises. The said predecessor of the petitioners by Agreement dated 21st March, 2003 inducted the respondent as a licensee. Reliance has been placed on Leave and Licence Agreement dated 21st March, 2003. It is contended that the respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as monthly compensation. Reliance is placed on supplemental Agreement, dated 8th September, 2004 executed by and between the said Mrs. Najoo Bhiwandiwala and the respondent. It is stated that under the said supplemental Agreement the respondent was permitted to carry out certain works of additions or alterations subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the said Agreement. It is alleged that the original owner Mrs. Najoo Bhiwandiwala had filed an application for eviction under section 24 of the said Act before the Competent Authority against the respondent. The respondent has filed a suit for declaration and injunction in which the respondent has claimed that he has right to occupy the suit premises as a licensee upto 27th February, 2008.

(3.) In the present application filed by the petitioners under section 24 of the said Act it was contended that the licence expired with efflux of time on 27 th February, 2008. It alleged in the application that the respondent had paid compensation up to 27th May, 2006 to the predecessor of the petitioners. Various reliefs were claimed in the application, such as, recovery of possession, a direction to pay undisputed amount of compensation and direction to pay double the amount of agreed compensation with effect from 28th May, 2007. It must be noted here that an application for intervention was made in the said application by a third party Mr. Nirav Modi. It is the case made out in the said application that the predecessor of the petitioners had executed a declaration under which an option was given to the said Mr. Modi to purchase the suit premises for consideration mentioned therein. It is stated that reference to the said declaration has been incorporated in the Agreement dated 21st March, 2003 executed by the petitioner's predecessor in favour of the respondent. A suit filed by said Mr. Modi on the original side of this Court is pending. The suit is for specific performance of the alleged Agreement for Sale. The application for intervention made by the said third party came to be rejected by the Competent Authority. The said order was challenged by the said Mr. Modi. However, it is not necessary to go into those details as the controversy relating to rights of the said Mr. Modi may not be subject-matter of this petition.