Bombay High Court
Elhousie German International Private ... vs Ashish S/O Narindermohan Malhotra Thr. ... on 26 June, 2023
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 1.WP.3924-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3924 OF 2023
( Elhouse German International Private Ltd., Thr. Its Director Ajay S/o
Ramchandra Uttarwar & Ors.
Vs.
Ashish S/o Narindermohan Malhotra & Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. R.S. Giripunje, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, AGP for the Respondent No.4/State.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 26th JUNE, 2023 Heard Mr. Giripunje, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Khan, learned AGP for the respondent No.4/State.
2. The petition challenges the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the "MRC Act"), whereby the application filed by the respondent/licensor, has been allowed (page 341) and so also the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, in appeal rejecting the same (page 351).
3. Mr. Giripunje, learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that the initial period of licensee ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2023 18:53:32 ::: 2 1.WP.3924-2023.odt was for five years which was to expire on 31.10.2020 and since the application under Section 24 of the MRC Act, was filed on account of termination of the period of license, Section 24 of the MRC Act would not be applicable. It is further contended, that during the currency of the license period, there was an agreement between the parties for the sale of the premises in question on 03.10.2019, on account of which also Section 24 of the MRC Act, did not apply.
4. Ms. Khan, learned AGP for the respondent No. 4, supports the impugned order.
5. It is an admitted position, that the period of license under the agreement between the parties expired on 31.10.2020. The application under Section 24 of the MRC Act, came to be filed on 27.01.2021. The contention that on account of an agreement dated 03.10.2019, since the petitioners are claimed to be in part performance of the said agreement, Section 24 of the MRC Act, would not apply, does not appeal to me for the reason that by their own contention, the period of the license, stood curtailed on account of the claim made of an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioners under which also a claim was being made of being in possession in part performance thereof. The provisions of Section 24 of the MRC Act, do not make any distinction, regarding the expiry of the period of license either by volition of the parities or otherwise. It only contemplates, that the period of license has expired. Once the petitioners contend execution of agreement of sale dated 03.10.2019 ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2023 18:53:32 ::: 3 1.WP.3924-2023.odt in their favour that would automatically curtail the period of license as the plea of possession thereafter is not that of a licensee, but as a prospective purchaser in possession, thereby relating such possession not to the license but under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. I, therefore do not see any merit in the contention, the same is rejected.
6. There is yet another reason for not entertaining the petition inasmuch as the petitioners have filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 03.10.2019 vide Spl.C.S. No. 754/2020 in which by an order passed below Exh. 5, the same has been rejected. Thus, in my considered opinion, no case is made out for interference.
7. The Petition is therefore dismissed.
8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners, upon instructions, seeks four months time to vacate the premises in question, on the ground that the father of the petitioners is an old aged person and some time would be required to vacate the same.
9. Considering the above position, in case an undertaking is filed today itself under the signature of the petitioners duly witnessed by the counsel undertaking to vacate the premises within a period of one month from today, time for vacation shall stand extended by one month. In case, the same is not so filed, the authorities below can go ahead with the eviction proceedings.
::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2023 18:53:32 :::4 1.WP.3924-2023.odt List the matter at 2.30 pm at the request of Ld. Counsel for petitioner, for the undertaking to be filed.
10. At the end of todays board. An undertaking has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, under the signature of his client and has been tendered across the bar which is taken on record and marked as 'X' for the purpose of identification. The undertaking is accepted as an undertaking to the Court and four weeks time from today is granted for eviction of the premises in question.
JUDGE SD. Bhimte ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2023 18:53:32 :::