Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In pursuance thereof, the Commissioner decided the revision application and confirmed the orders passed by the Competent Authority. It is against these orders, the petitioners have instituted the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. In support of this petition, Mr.Dhakephalkar strenuously contended that the Competent Authority committed serious error in refusing to grant leave to defend. He submitted that the petitioners have raised substantial defence and triable issues. In the first place, by clause 15 of the leave and licence agreement dated 21/03/2003, the parties acknowledged and recognized an oral agreement between the former owner and Mr.Nirav Modi where under Mr.Nirav Modi and/or his nominee was granted an option to purchase the suit premises at ingale -: 8 :- 902.wp.3886.10 any time during the period from 01/04/2003 to 26/02/2008. In the event of the option holder exercising the aforesaid option and becoming the owner of the suit premises by execution of appropriate agreement(s) for sale or conveyance(s) of the suit premises after having paid appropriate stamp duty thereon, as then applicable, the petitioners herein were to observe, perform and carry out their obligations under this licence agreement and the licence created in favour of option holder as purchaser and were to hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the purchaser instead of licensor upon expiry or sooner determination of the licence. In such event, the option holder was as a purchaser, from and after the date of the purchase, to observe and perform his obligations under the leave and licence agreement in respect of the suit premise and was on expiry or sooner determination and against the petitioners handing over to the option holder as a purchaser, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, to refund to the petitioners the security deposit paid by them to the respondents. He submitted that in pursuance of this clause, Mr.Nirav Modi has instituted suit on the Original Side of this Court for specific performance of contract. The same is pending. He submitted that in view of clause 15 of the leave and licence agreement, it is abundantly clear that oral agreement was entered into between the former owner and Mr.Nirav Modi whereunder she agreed to sell the suit premises to him. He submitted that this was a valid ingale -: 9 :- 902.wp.3886.10 defence and raises a triable issue. The defence so raised is not a moon-shine or illusory just for the sake of opposing the application under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act.

including the suit premises to respondents No. 4 & 5. The petitioners have instituted L.D. Suit No. 45/55 of 2006 for declaration and injunction contending interalia that they have right of licence in respect of the suit premises upto 27/02/2008. Mr.Nirav Modi has also instituted suit bearing No. 1166 of 2006 on the Original Side side of this Court for specific performance of contract. Mr.Dhakephalkar submitted that under clause 15 of the leave and licence agreement dated 21/03/2003, the parties acknowledged and recognized an oral agreement entered into between the former owner and Mr.Nirav Modi whereunder an option to purchase the suit premises at any time during the period from 01/04/2003 to 26/02/2008 was given. In pursuance of this, Mr.Nirav Modi has instituted a suit on the Original Side of this Court for specific performance of contract and the same is pending. He submitted that it is a valid and substantial defence to the proceedings instituted by the respondents under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The said defence also raises a triable issue. He also relied upon clause 12.1 of the agreement which entitles the ingale -: 15 :- 902.wp.3886.10 petitioner to carry out structural alterations and additions to the suit premises. He submitted that the licence created by the respondents No. 4 & 5 in favour of the petitioners cannot be revoked in view of section 60(b) of the Easements Act. This is also a substantial defence to the application filed by the respondents No. 4 & 5 under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The defence so raised by the petitioners is not a moon-shine or illusory defence just for the sake of opposing the application filed by the respondents No. 4 & 5 under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act. He heavily relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in cases of Precision Steel & Engineering Works (supra) & Indrajeet Kaur (supra).

15. The contentions raised by Mr.Dhakephalkar were also raised before the authorities below. The contention that Mr.Nirav Modi had become owner of the suit premises was considered by the Competent Authority from paragraphs 6 to 12. In paragraph 10, the Competent Authority observed that the petitioners admitted in L.D.Suit instituted by them in the Small Causes Court that they are in possession of the suit premises on the basis of the leave and licence agreement. It is an admitted fact that as per leave and licence agreement, the petitioners herein are licensee and not Mr.Nirav Modi.

17. As far as order dated 05/03/2010 passed by the Commissioner is concerned, in paragraph 5, the Commissioner adverted to section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act and the fact that the petitioner herein accepted existence of registered leave and licence agreement dated 21/03/2003. The Commissioner also considered the case of irrevocable licence made out by the petitioners on the basis of section 60(b) of the Easements Act and considered the decision of the Kerala High Court in case of Geetha Varma Vs. U.K.Amminikutty, AIR 1995 Kerala 168 and decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Skylines Advertising Pvt.Ltd Vs.National Airport Authority, 2005 ILR (KAR) 4397. The Commissioner also considered clause 12.5 and clause 16 of the leave and licence agreement. As per clause 12.5 of the supplementary agreement, the licensee was to remove at its own costs all furniture, fixtures, fittings and additions in the premises made or done by the licensee and similarly clause (l) thereof provided that the licensee shall pay to the licensor Rs. 1.50 Crores as compensation for restoration of the premises to its original condition. Clause 16 provided that nothing contained in the agreement shall be construed as creating any right, interest, easement, tenancy or sub-tenancy in favour of licensee in or over or upon the premises or any part thereof other than the licence granted. The Commissioner also noted that the petitioner did not produce any document on the basis of which claim ingale -: 18 :- 902.wp.3886.10 of irrevocable licensee could be sustained. Insofar as the option to purchase the suit premises by Mr.Nirav Modi is concerned, the Commissioner recorded in paragraphs 14 and 16 that Advocate for the petitioner did not press rights of Mr. Nirav Modi. That apart, having regard to section 24(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Act, I do not find that the authorities below committed any error in not entertaining claim made by Mr.Nirav Modi being a third party.