Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Revisional Order | Written Leave And Licence Agreement Treated As Conclusive Evidence Under Section 24 Maharashtra Rent Act
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar allowed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court set aside the order dated 14th February 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Revision Application No. 747 of 2024. As a result, the order dated 9th August 2024 issued by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Konkan Division in Eviction Application No. 247 of 2024 was restored. The judgment directed dismissal of the revision application filed before the Additional Divisional Commissioner. The writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs.
The Civil Writ Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 14th February 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Revision Application No. 747 of 2024. By this order, the Additional Divisional Commissioner had set aside the order dated 9th August 2024 passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Konkan Division in Eviction Application No. 247 of 2024. The Additional Divisional Commissioner had remanded the matter to the Competent Authority for trial and directed that an order be passed after both parties had an opportunity to lead evidence.
Before passing the eviction order, the Competent Authority had disposed of two applications filed by the respondents. The application at Exhibit 11 sought leave to defend under Section 43(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The application at Exhibit 12 was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Both applications were rejected. Thereafter, the Competent Authority passed an eviction order on 9th August 2024.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, no evidence contrary to the terms of the written leave and licence agreement could be led. It was submitted that the written agreement is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Sanath Kumar Sanjib Das v. Fernandes Anthony John & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2135) and Ramesh Sidde Gawda v. Vivek Deendayal Agarwal (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 6262). It was submitted that the Revisional Authority passed the order contrary to the settled legal position and that the order of the Competent Authority should be restored.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents were in possession of the premises since 2011. It was stated that the last leave and licence agreement was executed on 16th June 2018 and expired on 15th June 2020. The application was filed on 9th November 2023. It was submitted that after the expiry of the agreement, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondents as licensor and licensees no longer existed and therefore the application under Section 24 was not maintainable. It was further submitted that there was material on record showing that the parties had negotiated a sale of the premises and fixed a price. A civil suit seeking specific performance of an oral agreement was stated to be pending. It was submitted that the impugned order did not warrant interference.
The Court noted that the issues involved in the writ petition were also addressed in Alpana Sanjay Kolhatkar & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Amrut Gone & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No. 11046 of 2019, decided on 7th August 2023). The following questions were identified in that matter:
(i) What is the scope of Explanation (b) to Section 24 read with Section 43(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999?
(ii) Whether the Competent Authority, while deciding the application for leave to defend under Section 43(4), can do so dehors Explanation (b) to Section 24?
(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it is necessary to grant leave to defend?
The Court referred to the relevant statutory provisions under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, including Sections 24, 39 to 44, and 55. The Court noted that Explanation (b) to Section 24 prescribes a special rule of evidence, stating that an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
The Court referred to the decision in Jasmeet Hoon v. Rita Johar (2000 SCC OnLine Bom 524), which addressed the similar provision under Section 13-A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was held that the Competent Authority is not expected to go behind the document to find out the real intention of the parties. It was also noted that in Swami Attah v. Mrs. Thrity Poonawalla (1996 (1) Mh LJ 603), the Full Bench had held that where a document is treated as conclusive, it creates a presumption juris et de jure and no evidence can be adduced to contradict it.
Reference was also made to Amarjit Singh v. R.N. Gupta (1995 (4) BCR 538), Automatic Electric Ltd. v. Sharadchandra Vinayak Tipnis (1996 (1) Mh LJ 619), Ramesh Ramrao Hate v. Parvez B. Bhesania (1997 (1) Mh LJ 295), Rajendra B. Nair v. Suresh D. Dnyamothe (2002 SCC OnLine Bom 244), and Mukesh Dharsibhai Thakkar v. Rajnikant Ramanlal Gunderia (2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1481). These cases reiterated that the Competent Authority is bound to act upon the terms of the written leave and licence agreement, as such agreements are treated as conclusive evidence.
The Court considered the implications of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and observed that while it mandates registration of the leave and licence agreement, failure to register does not negate the statutory effect of the agreement if the agreement is otherwise admissible in evidence.
The Court concluded that the Revisional Authority had committed an error in setting aside the eviction order and remanding the matter, given that the agreement in writing had not been denied by the respondents and stood as conclusive evidence.
The Court quashed and set aside the order dated 14th February 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Revision Application No. 747 of 2024. The revision application stood dismissed. In consequence, the order dated 9th August 2024 issued by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Konkan Division in Eviction Application No. 247 of 2024 was restored.
The writ petition was allowed in the above terms. No order was made as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Alizain Patel, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Nilesh L. Makwana, Advocate with Ms. Lajri H. Panchal, Advocate
Case Title: Ram Shankar Sinha Vs Ritesh V. Patel & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:22102
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 3767 of 2025
Bench: Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
[Read/Download order]
