Mrs. Pooja Jagannath Pimple v. Additional Commissioner Kokan Division

1/6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2024.01.11 14:02:45 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 9615 OF 2023 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15483 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9615 OF 2023 Pooja Jagannath Pimple & Anr.

..... Petitioner/ Applicants

VERSUS

Additional Commissioner Kokan Division & Anr.

..... Respondents Mr.C.P.Deogirikar a/w. Mr.Drupad Patil, Mr.Sameer Logade for the Applicants.

Mr.A.M.Saraogi a/w. Mr.Manoj Singh, Mr.A.R.Pandey for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 8 JANUARY, 2024 P.C. :- This interim application is filed by the licencee, under the leave and licence agreement.

2.

The concurrent findings recorded by the Competent Authority under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the Revisional Authority under section 44 of the Maharashtra

2/6 Rent Control Act.

3.

The respondent is admittedly the owner of the premises being Flat No.D/62, 6th Floor, Rustomjee Riviera, Marve Road, Malad (West), Mumbai - 400 064. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into the registered leave and licence agreements, last of such leave and licence agreement ended on 28 February, 2017. The monthly licence fees payable was Rs.50,000/- per month. Since the parties did not enter into any fresh leave and licence agreement after 28 February, 2017, the respondent landlord filed eviction application No. 84 of 2019 before the Competent Authority under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. After the parties were heard, and considering the evidence on record, the Competent Authority by its judgment and order dated 28 November, 2022 allowed the eviction application of the licensor and directed the licencee (petitioner herein), to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. Further, the licencee was also directed to pay the damages to the licensor at the rate of

3/6 Rs.1,00,000/- per month ( Rs.50,000 x 2 = Rs. 1,00,000/-) from 1 April, 2017 till handing over the vacant possession. 4.

The licencee thereafter challenged the judgment and order dated 28 November, 2022 passed by the Competent Authority, by way of revision under section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner after hearing the parties, by its judgment and order dated 24 May, 2023 rejected the revision filed by the licencee.

5.

The present writ petition is filed by the licencee challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities. 6.

Learned advocate for the respondent/licensor has placed before this Court a photocopy of an undertaking dated 19 December, 2023, filed by the licencee before the Competent Authority. For ease of reference, the said undertaking given by the licencee is produced hereinbelow :-

4/6

5/6 7.

It is the case of the licensor that after such a solemn undertaking was given by the licencee with the Competent Authority, they have not complied with the said undertaking and have not deposited any money as per the undertaking given by them.

8.

It is admitted fact that even today, the licencee is in possession of the suit premises.

9.

Mr.Deogirikar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that his client wants to file a suit for specific performance against the licensor, for which he requires two months' time.

10. No satisfying reason is shown by the licencee not to comply with the undertaking given before the Competent Authority. The licencee has sought time to deposit certain amount for clearing the arrears.

11. No case is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Competent Authority and the Additional

6/6 Commissioner, Konkan Division.

12. Hence writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

13. Pending interim application is also disposed of. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]