Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui vs Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-AS:21349
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9525 OF 2025
Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui ...Petitioner
V/s.
Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi ...Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11519 OF 2025
Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi
...Applicant
V/s.
Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Niranjan Mogre for Petitioner.
Mr. Karan Bhosale with Mr. Vishal Pattabiram, Mr. Dhruv B. Jain and
Mr. Harsh Sawant i/b Mr. Rajendra J. Rathod for Respondent & for
Applicant in IA/11519/2025
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON: 29 APRIL 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON: 05 MAY 2026
JUDGMENT:
1) By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, Petitioner assails the order dated 6 June 2025 passed by the
Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division under Section 44
of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) dismissing the
Page No. 1 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
Revision Application preferred by him and confirming the Order dated 20
March 2025 passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court
under Section 24 of the MRC Act in Eviction Application No. 240 of 2024.
The Competent Authority has directed the Petitioner to hand over vacant
and peaceful possession of the licensed premises with further direction
for payment of damages at the rate of Rs.2,60,000/- per month (double
the license fees) from 1 June 2024 till handing over possession of the
premises after appropriating the amount of security deposit .
th
2) Flat No. 143, B-Wing, 14 floor, Heera Panna CHS, Tulsiwadi,
Mumbai are the ‘ licensed premises ’. Respondent is the owner of the
licensed premises. Respondent granted license in favour of the Petitioner
in respect of the licensed premises vide registered leave and license
Agreement dated 2 June 2021. The tenure of license was for a period of
36 months from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2024. The license fees agreed
under the leave and license agreement was Rs.1,30,000/- per month. The
Petitioner also paid refundable security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-to the
Respondent. This is how Petitioner entered the licensed premises w.e.f. 1
June 2021.
3) It is the case of the Petitioner that the licensed premises
required additional modifications and refurbishments to make the same
habitable for residential purposes and that it was agreed that the
Petitioner would carry out repairs, modifications, refurbishments and
renovations at his cost to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs, which amount would
be eventually borne by the Respondent. Petitioner claims that since the
licensor did not have THE financial capacity to bear the expenditure
Page No. 2 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
required for renovation of the flat, it was agreed that the amount of Rs.
50 lakhs shall be treated as security deposit in addition to security
deposit paid under the leave and license agreement. Petitioner claimed
that he protested about non-reflection of stipulations regarding security
deposit of Rs.50 lakhs in the license agreement and that the Respondent
assured the Petitioner that the said arrangement would be recorded by
way of a separate document. Petitioner relies on MOU, Indemnity Bond
and Affidavit allegedly executed on 4 June 2021. Petitioner claims to
have carried out repairs, modifications, refurbishments and renovations
in the flat and claims to have spent an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs for the said
purpose. The period of license came to an end on 31 May 2024 and the
Petitioner claims that he demanded refund of security deposit of Rs.53
lakhs and showed willingness to vacate the licensed premises. Petitioner
claims that Respondent was in financial difficulties and expressed
inability to refund the security deposit of Rs.53 lakhs and this is how
Petitioner continues to occupy the licensed premises.
4) In the above background, Respondent filed Eviction
Application No.240 of 2024 before the Competent Authority, Rent
Control Act Court, Konkan Division, Mumbai for recovery of possession
of the licensed premises. Petitioner was served with summons and his
Constituted Attorney appeared through his advocate on 14 February
2025 since the Petitioner was at Dubai at that time. The Petitioner claims
that he intended to file application for leave to defend. However, due to
typographical error in describing the pleading, the same was shown as
written statement/reply. The Competent Authority passed order dated 20
March 2025 holding that Petitioner did not seek leave to defend and
Page No. 3 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
allowed the Eviction Application directing the Petitioner to hand over
possession of the licensed premises to the Respondent within 30 days.
The Competent Authority also directed the Petitioner to pay double the
amount of license fees to the Respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,60,000/- per
month from 1 June 2024 till the date of handing over of vacant
possession of the licensed premises after appropriating security deposit
paid under the license agreement.
5) Petitioner filed Revision Application under Section 44 of the
MRC Act before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan
Division, Mumbai. By order dated 28 May 2025, the Revisional Authority
directed the parties to maintain status quo . The Revisional Authority has
dismissed the Revision Application by order dated 6 June 2025.
6) Aggrieved by the decisions of the Competent Authority and
Revisional Authority, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition. By
order dated 24 July 2025, this Court continued the status quo granted by
the Revisional Authority. Respondent has filed Interim Application No.
11519 of 2025 for vacation of the status quo order or in the alternative,
direction for deposit of arrears of rent and damages and for clearing the
electricity bill of Rs. 42,000/-.
7) With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
8) Mr Mogre, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that the Competent Authority has grossly erred in allowing the
Page No. 4 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
Revision Application without considering the defence of the Petitioner.
That mere typographical error in the pleadings filed before the
Competent Authority ought to have been ignored and the said pleadings
ought to have been treated as the application for leave to defend. That
there is absolutely no consideration by the Competent Authority to the
valid defence of the Respondent about spending an amount of Rs. 53
lakhs for renovation of the premises which was agreed to be treated as
security deposit. That as per the MOU, the Petitioner is entitled to
remain in possession of the suit premises without paying any license fees
till refund of entire amount of security deposit. He submits that the
MOU has to be read alongwith the Leave and License agreement. That
MOU itself provides that the amount of expenditure of Rs. 50 lakhs
should be treated as additional security deposit.
9) Mr. Mogre submits that the Eviction Application filed by the
Respondent was itself defective. That the Eviction Application was filed
by the constituted attorney when the Respondent was in UK. Even on the
date of execution of Power of Attorney, the Respondent was at UK. He
submits that the Power of Attorney is a fictitious document shown to
have been executed in India when Respondent was admittedly at UK.
That the Power of Attorney bears the signature and seal of a witness at
Dubai but the same is notarized at Mumbai. That since Power of Attorney
itself is an invalid document, the entire Eviction Application becomes
defective. He relies upon judgment of the Apex Court in K. Akbar Ali vs.
1
K. Umar Khan and Ors. in support of his contention. Mr. Mogre relies
on provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the
1
(2021) 14 SCC 51
Page No. 5 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
in support of his contention that the Eviction Application was
Code)
inherently defective and could not have been entertained or decided by
the Competent Authority. He relies on circular dated 28 May 1993 issued
by the Government of Maharashtra to curb the tendency of notarization
of documents in absence of parties executing the same. He submits that
the notary who is shown to have notarized the document has also signed
the affidavit confirming that the document is a forged one. He submits
that once the issue of defect in the Power of Attorney goes to the root of
the matter, the entire proceedings are vitiated.
10) Mr. Mogre further submits that the Competent Authority
has not applied its mind correctly to the material on record as it has
erroneously recorded that the MOU was for sale and purchase, which was
never the case of the Petitioner. He submits that since there is no
consideration to the defence raised by the Petitioner, the eviction
proceedings deserve to be remanded for being reconsidered. That
Petitioner is willing to vacate possession of the suit premises upon
receipt of the entire amount of security deposit of Rs. 53 lakhs. He
accordingly prays for setting aside both the impugned orders.
11) The petition is opposed by Mr Bhosale, the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent, who submits that the Competent
Authority and Revisionary Authorities have recorded concurrent findings
against the Petitioner. That the case involves simple transaction of
license granted for a period of 3 years. That the Competent Authority is
expected to decide proceedings by taking into consideration only the
Leave and License agreement. That the MOU, Indemnity Bond and
Page No. 6 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
Affidavit are forged documents. That though all the three documents are
shown to have been executed on the same day i.e. 4 June 2021, the MOU
is shown to have been executed at Mumbai whereas Indemnity Bond and
Affidavit are shown to have been executed at Mumbra. That this depicts
clear forgery in MOU, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit.
12) Mr. Bhosale takes me through various stipulations of the
Leave and License Agreement in support of his contention that the
licensed premises were to be used by the Petitioner in the same
condition as they stood and that parties had expressly agreed that if any
additions are made to the licensed premises, the same would become
property of the licensor and that the licensee shall not be entitled to
raise any claim in support thereof. That the terms and conditions of
Leave and License agreement would prevail over the alleged MOU. That
the Competent Authority cannot otherwise take into consideration any
document, save and except the Leave and License Agreement. In support,
he relies upon judgment of this Court in Sanath Kumar Sanjib Das vs.
2
Fernandes Anthony John and Ors. He relies on judgment of this Court
3
in Jambu Kumar Seth vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in support of
his contention that a party approaching court with unclean hands must
be shown the door by the court. Mr. Bhosale submits that the Petitioner
has filed L.D. Suit No. 67/2025 in the Small Causes Court and by order
dated 6 December 2025, the application for temporary injunction has
been rejected. He submits that the issue of defect in Power of Attorney
was not raised before the Competent Authority or before the Revisional
Authority. He relies on judgment of Delhi High Court in Grafitek
2
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2135
3
Writ Petition (AS) No.19491 of 2024 decided on 14 August 2025.
Page No. 7 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
4
International vs. K.K. Kaura and Ors. in support of his contention that
the court must presume in favour of Power of Attorney and mere non-
notarisation of Power of Attorney does not mean that the concerned
person is not authorised to institute the suit and that even non-
notarised Power of Attorney confers power on the person to institute the
suit. Mr. Bhosale submits that the Petitioner is squatting on the licensed
premise and there are rental arrears to the tune of Rs.7,49,000/- during
the license period in addition to liability to pay amount of Rs.54,60,000/-
as on March 2026 towards damages granted by the Competent Authority.
That the total amount due and payable is Rs.62,09,000/-. He prays for
dismissal of the Petition.
13) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
14) The case involves typical dispute between licensor and
licensee, where licensee is refusing to vacate possession of licensed
premises by raising a defence that he has spent monies on renovation
and repairs of the licensed premises. In the present case, Petitioner
claims to have spent an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- for renovation of the
licensed premised and insists that there is agreement between the
parties for treatment of the said amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards
refundable security deposit. Since Respondent is not refunding the said
amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, the Petitioner continues to occupy the
licensed premises. The arrangement of spending of amount of Rs.
50,00,000/- and/or for treating the same as security deposit is not
4
2002 (62) DRJ 72
Page No. 8 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
recorded in the licensed agreement but is shown to have been recorded
in the form of a separate MOU allegedly executed on 4 June 2021.
Respondent-licensor denies having executed any such MOU.
15) Since similar disputes of licensees not vacating the premises
on the pretext of having incurred expenditure for renovation thereof
repeatedly come up before this Court, it would be necessary to clarify the
legal position in this regard. When license is granted by the owner for
occupation of the licensed premises, the licensee is entitled to occupy
the premises subject to observance of terms and conditions of the license
agreement and only upto the period agreed under the license agreement.
Except limited right to occupy the premises during the license period, no
other right is created in favour of the licensee in respect of the licensed
premises. The licensee merely secures a license to occupy the premises
subject to observance of terms of license and till the tenure of the
license. The moment the license comes to an end, the licensee must
vacate possession of the premises. While incurring expenditure for
renovation of the licensed premises, the licensee must bear in mind the
scope of his/her limited rights in respect of the premises.
16) Since a Leave and License Agreement grants a mere license
to occupy the premises during the license period, if a licensee incurs
expenditure in making the licensed premises suitable to his/her
requirements, the licensee takes the risk of spending such amount on
premises not owned by him/her. Mere renovation of the licensed
premises does not create any right higher than that of a mere licensee in
favour of such occupier. Spending monies on renovation of the premises
Page No. 9 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
does not place such licensee on a higher pedestal than that of any other
licensee who does not spend any amount on renovation of the premises.
When it comes to eviction of the licensee, the law does not recognise any
distinction between a licensee spending monies in improving the
premises and the licensee who does not need to spend anything.
17) When leave and license agreement is executed, the licensee
is aware of the position that his/her right to occupy the licensed
premises is only during the tenure of license. The tenure of license
differs depending on agreement between the parties. It may happen that
in a case involving license for a longer duration, the licensee may think it
appropriate to make the licensed premises comfortable and convenient
by incurring expenditure thereon. If expenditure required for renovation
of premises is significant, parties may agree for longer lock in period.
However, such arrangement must restrict to tenure of license and be
reflected in the license agreement. However, when licensee incurs
expenditure in repairing or renovating the premises, mere incurring of
such expenditure does not create any special right in favour of the
licensee to demand the amount spent on such renovations from the
licensor. In any case, licensee cannot hold on to possession of the
premises on the ground that expenditure is incurred in repairing or
renovating the same. Once license period comes to an end, there is an
obligation on the licensee to vacate possession of premises. No amount
of expenditure incurred on repairing or renovating the licensed premises
can entitle the licensee to latch on to possession of the licensed
premises. It is the risk taken by the licensee to spend money on property
belonging to the licensor. License agreement imposes duty on the
Page No. 10 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
licensee to vacate possession of the licensed premises at the end of the
license, and this aspect must be borne in mind by the licensee before
incurring expenditure on the licensed premises.
18) There is yet another aspect which must be borne in mind in
the context of jurisdiction of Competent Authority under Section 24 of
the MRC Act. The Legislature has conferred summary jurisdiction on the
Competent Authority to evict the licensee after expiry of the license
period. Section 24 of the MRC Act provides thus:
24. Landlord entitled to recover possession of premises given on licence
on expiry
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a licensee in possession or
occupation of premises given to him on licence for residence shall deliver
possession of such premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of licence;
and on the failure of the licensee to so deliver the possession of the licenced
premises, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of such premises
from a licensee, on the expiry of the period of licence, by making an
application to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority, on
being satisfied that the period of licence has expired, shall pass an order of
eviction of a licensee.
(2) Any licensee who does not deliver possession of the premises to the
landlord on expiry of the period of licence and continues to be in possession of
the licensed premises till he is dispossessed by the Competent Authority shall
be liable to pay damages at double the rate of the licence fee or charge of the
premises fixed under the agreement of licence.
(3) The Competent Authority shall not entertain any claim of whatever nature
from any other person who is not a licensee according to the agreement of
licence.
Section 43 of the MRC Act provides for a special procedure
19)
for decision of the Eviction Applications by the Competent Authorities
and provides thus:
43. Special procedure for disposal of applications.
(1) Every application by a landlord under this Chapter for the recovery of
possession shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed. The
Page No. 11 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
Competent Authority shall deal with the application in accordance with the
procedure laid down in this section.
(2) The Competent Authority shall issue summons in relation to every
application referred to in sub-section (2) in the form specified in Schedule Ill.
(3) (a) The Competent Authority shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with;
the issue of summons for service on the tenant or licensee, as the case may be,
also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgement
due, addressed to the tenant or the licensee or agent empowered by such
tenant or licensee to accept the service at the place where the tenant or
licensee or such agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or
personally works for gain;
(b) When an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the tenant or licensee
or their agent received by the Competent Authority or the registered article
containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to
have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or licensee
or their agent had refused to take delivery of the registered article, the
Competent Authority may proceed to hear and decide the application as if
there has been a valid service of summons.
(4) (a) The tenant or licensee on whom the summons is duly served in the
ordinary way or by registered post in the manner laid down in sub-section (3)
shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises, unless within thirty
days of the service of summons on him as aforesaid, he files an affidavit stating
grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains
leave from the Competent Authority as hereinafter provided, and in default of
his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the
Statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed
to be admitted by the tenant or the licensee, as the case may be, and the
applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid,
(b) The Competent Authority shall give to the tenant or licensee leave to
contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant or licensee discloses
such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the
recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in section 22 or
23 or 24;
(c) Where leave is granted to the tenant or licensee to contest the application,
the Competent Authority shall commence the hearing of the application as
early as practicable and shall, as far as possible, proceed with the hearing from
day to day, and decide the same, as far as may be, within six months of the
order granting of such leave to contest the application.
Page No. 12 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
(5) The Competent Authority shall, while holding an inquiry in a proceeding to
which this Chapter applies, follow the practice and procedure of a court of
small causes, including the recording of evidence.
20) There is a reason for creating a special and summary remedy
for eviction of licensees. The summary remedy instills a confidence in
favour of the house owner, who becomes ready to permit his/her house
to be used by another person when there is reasonable assurance of
getting back possession of the premises at the end of the tenure of
license. The summary remedy ensures that the licensor does not have to
go through the rigmarole of usual lengthy litigation. Such confidence in
the mind of the house owner unlocks the housing stock in urban areas,
which arrangement becomes a win-win situation for both the house
owners as well as the house users. Therefore, the legislature has
deliberately made a provision for summary eviction of licensee for the
purpose of encouraging the activity of rental housing since housing in
urban and metropolitan areas has gone beyond the reach of the buyers.
Rental housing offers a cheaper alternative. However, an owner of the
house needs to be encouraged to offer his house for being used by the
house-user. To provide a sense of security to the house owner that
he/she would swiftly receive back possession of the house upon expiry of
the license, the legislature has consciously provided for summary
eviction of licensee under Section 24 of the MRC Act.
21) Looking at the objective behind enactment of provisions of
Section 24 of the MRC Act, the inquiry before the Competent Authority
needs to be summary in nature. The Legislature has consciously removed
the procedural elements which ordinarily seek to delay decision of
Page No. 13 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
proceedings and has provided for conduct of a very summary inquiry by
the Competent Authority while deciding licensor-licensee disputes.
Section 43 of the MRC Act provides for a special procedure for disposal of
Eviction Applications. The licensee does not have a right to defend the
Eviction Application and needs to seek leave of the Competent Authority
for filing written statement / reply. In a plain case involving the expiry of
license, the Competent Authority need not even grant leave to defend
and can order summary eviction of the licensee.
22) Summary eviction procedure of licensees has instilled a
sense of security amongst the house owners who find it encouraging to
offer their houses for being used by the licensees. If Competent
Authority is expected to decide eviction proceedings like suits and if
eviction proceedings before the Competent Authority take years for
decision, the house owners would shy away from offering their houses
for being used by the licensees out of danger of licensee continuing to
latch on to possession of their houses by delaying the eviction
proceedings.
23) Expiry of license under the agreement becomes a
jurisdictional fact for assuming jurisdiction by the Competent Authority.
Since enquiry before the Competent Authority is summary, it is not
expected to look into the documents other than the Leave and License
Agreement. Parties may choose to execute multiple documents to
complete a transaction, however, when it comes to summary inquiry by
Competent Authority, it would look into only the terms and conditions of
the license agreement and not into the complex relations sought to be
Page No. 14 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
created through other documents. As observed above, existence of the
license agreement constitutes jurisdictional foundation for the
Competent Authority. If parties desire to have any different contractual
arrangement governing the license, the same needs to be reflected in the
license agreement and cannot be recorded in a separate document. To
illustrate, recovery of expenditure incurred in renovating the premises
may be recorded in the form of longer lock in period in the license
agreement and that stipulation can be enforced by the Competent
Authority in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the MRC Act.
However, if a separate document is executed recording condition of
refund of expenditure incurred by the licensee on the premises, such
contractual arrangement cannot be enforced before the CA and the
licensee will have to adopt other remedies, if available in law. Therefore,
the Authority is not supposed to look into the documents other than
license agreement for deciding dispute relating to eviction of a licensee.
If the Competent Authority is permitted to take into consideration
contractual relations arising out of documents other than leave and
license agreement, and embark upon an inquiry on issues other than
expiry of license period, the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority
would virtually be like that of a civil court. It is with this objective that
the summary enquiry contemplated by the legislature under Sections 24
and 43 of the MRC Act restricts the jurisdiction only to consideration of
the Leave and License Agreement.
24) The issue of impermissibility for Competent Authority to
take into consideration documents other than leave and license
agreement is no more . In (supra),
res integra Sanath Kumar Sanjib Das
Page No. 15 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
a MOU was executed in addition to license agreement under which the
owners agreed to sell the licensed premises to the licensee and the
amount of security deposit paid under the license was agreed to be
adjusted against sale consideration. The license was treated to have
expired by the licensor on account of breach of conditions of the MoU
though the license period was valid. This Court held that arrangement
between the parties for purchase of flat vide MOU could not be linked to
the license agreement as the entry of the licensee into the premises was
on the strength of license agreement. This Court held that jurisdiction of
the Competent Authority does not extend to interpretation of terms and
conditions of the MOU. This Court held that expiry of license is a
jurisdictional fact in absence of which the Competent Authority cannot
exercise jurisdiction under Section 24 of the MRC Act. It is held that
rights and obligations of the parties under the MOU cannot be taken into
consideration by the Competent Authority. This Court held in paras 7, 8
and 9 of the judgment as under:
7. Both the parties have relied upon various covenants of the MoU executed on 29
June 2021. True it is that some connection is sought to be established between the
license agreement and the MoU, paragraph 5 whereof reads thus:—
5. It is mutually agreed by and between the parties herein that in the event the
Purchaser fail to make the remaining balance amount of Rs. 53,00,000/- within
the stipulated period i.e. within 90 days from the date of registration of
Agreement for sale, then in such event the Sellers shall revoke and cancel this
MoU and in such event the leave and license agreement executed by the parties
herein shall be cancelled/revoked forthwith and in such case the purchaser
shall hand over the peaceful possession of said flat to the Sellers forthwith
upon cancellation of leave and license agreement.
(emphasis supplied)
Page No. 16 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
8. In my view, however, the arrangement between the parties for purchase of
the flat by execution of MoU dated 29 June 2021 cannot be linked with the
license agreement dated 13 June 2020. Petitioner's entry into the licensed
premises is on the strength of the license agreement. He might have agreed to
purchase the licensed premises by virtue of subsequently executed MoU.
However,
the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority is not to interpret or to deal
with the terms and conditions of the said MoU. The jurisdiction of the
Competent Authority under Section 24 of the MRC Act is to only examine
whether the tenure of the license has expired or not. Admittedly the tenure
of the license is upto 14 January 2025. The Competent Authority has however,
erroneously gone into the correspondence between the parties relating to
termination of the license agreement by linking the same with MoU for the
purpose of arriving at erroneous finding that the license agreement has expired on
21 June 2023. Perusal of the termination notice dated 21 June 2023 would indicate
that the same extensively refers to the covenants of MoU and conduct of parties,
post execution of the MoU. Who is at fault for non-completion of sale
transaction is something which would be outside the scope of enquiry before
the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority therefore ought to have
restricted its consideration only to the covenants of the leave and license
agreement. Section 24 of the MRC Act provides thus:—
xxx
9. The Competent Authority thus is vested with the jurisdiction to decide the
eviction proceedings only if the license has expired. Thus, expiry of license is
a jurisdictional fact, in absence of which, the Competent Authority cannot
exercise jurisdiction under Section 24 of the MRC Act. In the present case,
since the license continues to subsist, exercise of jurisdiction by the Competent
Authority under Section 24 of the Act is clearly faulty. Rights and obligations of
parties under the MoU is an altogether separate aspect, which the parties
can agitate before the Civil Court. Merely because the MoU provides for
cancellation of leave and license agreement on occurrence of a particular
event, it is not for the Competent Authority to examine the covenants of the
same MoU for assuming that the license has expired on account of non-
fulfillment of a particular act, when in fact, same continues to subsist till 14
January 2025.
(emphasis supplied)
25) In the present case also, the entire strength of defence of
the Petitioner is premised on the terms and conditions of the MOU,
under which parties allegedly agreed that Petitioner would spend
alteration and modification charges upto Rs.50 lakhs and the amount
Page No. 17 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
would be considered as additional security deposit. In my view,
Competent Authority is not expected to take into consideration any
document other than the leave and license agreement while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 24 and 43 of the MRC Act. If Petitioner
believes that he is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs
allegedly spent by him under the MOU, he is free to adopt such remedies
as may be available in law for recovery of the said amount. However, in
no circumstances, incurring of expenditure on licensed premises would
make him entitled to remain in possession of the licensed premises after
expiry of the license period.
26) Even otherwise, there appears to be stark inconsistencies in
the terms and conditions of the License Agreement and the one
contained in the alleged MOU. The Leave and License Agreement dated 2
June 2021 is a registered instrument whereas the alleged MOU is a mere
notarised document. Under the License Agreement, the security deposit
paid by the Petitioner is only Rs.3 lakhs which is recorded in para-2 as
under:
2. The Licensee agrees to give to the Licensor AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/=
(Three LakhsOnly) AS A REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPOSIT, as interest free
refundable security deposit which is to be refunded to the Licensee on the
Licensee vacating and delivering vacant possession of the Licensed Premises,
the ELECTRICITY shall be paid by Licensee.
Thus when the security deposit actually paid by the licensee is reflected
in the License Agreement, why would parties execute a separate MOU for
recording transaction of treatment of additional amount of Rs.
Page No. 18 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
50,00,000/- as security deposit two days later on 4 June 2021 is
incomprehensible.
27) Under the Leave and License Agreement, the licensee
agreed to occupy and use the premises on ‘as is where is basis’ not
requiring the licensor any additional payment for alterations /
additions / repairs / renovations. It was further agreed between the
parties that in the event of licensee making any alteration, modifications
or additions in the premises with the consent of the licensor, the same
would remain the exclusive property of the licensor and that licensee
shall not be entitled to claim compensation or payment of any amount
from the licensor. This is clear from Clause 13 of the Leave and License
Agreement which reads thus:
13. The Licensee shall occupy and use the said premises on “AS-IS-WHERE-IS”
basis and he shall not ask or require from the licensor from the licensor any
payment for any alteration/additions/repairs/renovations of the sale premises.
If any alteration/additions/repairs/renovations of the state premises is
required by the licensee. It is expressly agreed and declared by the licensee that
any alteration, modifications and stroke or additions of a structural and stroke
or permanent nature made by the license in or to the same premises with the
consent of the licensor shall at all times we and remain the exclusive property
of the licensor and license shall not be entitled to any claim, compensation or
payment nor shall he demand any amount on this behalf.
28) The licensee was granted period of 1 month for repairing
and renovating the licensed premises free of rent under clause 20 of the
License Agreement, which reads thus:
20. The Licensor has granted ONE MONTH for Flat Repairing and renovation
work to the Licensee and shall not levy any rent for one month.
Page No. 19 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
The licensor also gave certain articles/amenities belonging to her for
being used by the licensee during the license period.
29) Contrary to the terms and conditions of clause 13 of the
Leave and License Agreement, the alleged MOU is shown to have been
executed on 4 June 2021, which records in paras-2 and 3 as under:
2. The party of the first part agreed and confirm that she will pay the amount of
nutrition and modification charges upto Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs
Only) before taking the position of the seat flat. If the amount exceeds Rs. 50
Lakhs, the party of the second part has agreed and confirmed to pay the excess
amount. The party of the first part agreed and confirmed that, the alteration
and modification charges of Rs.50 lakhs will be considered as a security
deposit.
3. The party of the First Part, it fail to pay the amount of alteration and
modification charges of Rs.50,00,000/= (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) the party of
the first part has agreed and confirmed that, not to take the monthly
compensation amount (rent amount) closed than the position of the seed flat,
and until entire amount will be paid to the party of the second part, before
expiry of Live and License Agreement, dated 02.06.2021, without prior notice it
is solely the responsibility of the part of the first part given entire amount
amount of Rs.53 LAKHS a month before taking the position of the sales flat
from the party of the second part.
30) Thus, under the MOU, Respondent agreed to pay alteration
and modification charges of Rs.50 lakhs to the Petitioner (before taking
possession of the said flat). It is incomprehensible that the licensor
would pay amount of Rs.50 lakhs to the licensee for alteration or
modification charges. The obligation of licensee was to bear only the
amount in excess of Rs.50 lakhs under para 2 of the MOU. If licensor was
to bear expenditure of Rs.50 lakhs, how that amount would be treated as
security deposit (payable by licensee) again becomes incomprehensible.
Page No. 20 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
31) Going further, para 3 of the alleged MOU provided that in
the event of failure on the part of the licensor to pay the alternation and
modification charges of Rs.50 lakhs, she agreed not to take monthly
compensation amount and possession of the flat until the entire amount
is paid to the licensee ‘before expiry of leave and license agreement’.
Thus, if arrangement of MOU is to be given effect, the same would result
in ridiculous and incongruous situation. The arrangement under clauses
2 and 3 is such that even before taking over possession of the flat by the
licensee, licensor was to pay Rs.50 lakhs as alteration and modification
charges to the licensee. Thus, the alleged MOU contemplates unworkable
arrangement between the parties.
32) Para-8 of the MOU provides that the terms and conditions of
Leave and License Agreement dated 2 June 2021 would be binding on
both the parties. Para-8 of the alleged MOU stipulates thus:
8. It is mutually agreed by and between the parties that, terms and conditions
nd
of Original Leave and License Agreement dt.02 June, 2021, under registered
no. 5862/2021, dt.02.06.2021, for Thirty-six Months (36) against flat Heera
th
Panna C.HS Ltd., 14 Floor, Flat no. 143 B, Haji Ali, Tulsiwadi, Mumbai – 400
034 and M.O.U. will be binding of both party.
33) There is yet another circumstance which creates doubt
about authenticity of the MOU. Three documents are shown to have been
executed between the parties on 4 June 2021. MOU is shown to have
been executed at Mumbai on 4 June 2021, stamp paper for which is
purchased by Shobhana B. Ruhi, advocate from the Treasury. There are
two other documents shown to have been executed on 4 June 2021 viz.
Indemnity Bond and Affidavit. However, both Indemnity Bond and
Page No. 21 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
Affidavit are shown to have been executed at Mumbra, Thane.
Respondent has no semblance of communication at Mumbra, Thane and
why she would travel to Mumbra for execution of Indemnity Bond and
Affidavit at Mumbra, Thane is again a mystery. The stamp papers used
for execution of alleged Indemnity Bond and Affidavit is issued in the
name of Rashmi Constructions on 24 May 2021. Who is Rashmi
Constructions and why stamp papers purchased by that entity on 24 May
2021 are used for execution of alleged Indemnity Bond and Affidavit
dated 4 June 2021 is again difficult to comprehend. Prima facie therefore
the three documents of MOU, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit do not
appear to be genuine documents. However, I need not delve deeper into
this aspect as the Competent Authority was not expected to look into
MOU, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit while deciding eviction application
in summary enquiry under Section 24 of the MRC Act.
34) Petitioner has sought to question maintainability of
eviction application on the ground that Power of Attorney of Respondent
is not a genuine document. However, apparently this issue was not
raised before the Competent Authority in the written statement / reply
filed by the Petitioner. The issue of Power of Attorney was vaguely raised
in para-4 only questioning the relationship between Respondent and her
Constituted Attorney. No doubts were raised on the genuineness of POA.
In any case, I am not inclined to go into the issue of genuineness of POA
considering the position that tenure of license has expired and the
Petitioner is under obligation to vacate possession of the licensed
premises. Reliance by Mr. Mogre on the judgment of the Apex Court in K.
Akbar Ali (supra) therefore is inapposite.
Page No. 22 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-9525-2025 with IA 11519 of 2025
35) Another point raised by the Petitioner is that he was denied
opportunity to defend the Eviction Application. Provisions of Section 43
of the MRC Act are clear. Petitioner could not have directly filed written
statement / reply and ought to have secured leave of the Competent
Authority to defend the Eviction Application. Leaving aside this issue, I
have otherwise considered the defence offered by the Petitioner and I do
not find that the issues sought to be raised in the defence could have
been decided by the Competent Authority in the limited remit of enquiry
under Section 24 of the MRC Act.
36) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the
view that there is no warrant for interference in the orders passed by the
Competent Authority and the Revisional Authority. Petitioner has
secured entry into the licensed premises through registered Leave and
License Agreement dated 2 June 2021. Admittedly, the tenure of license
has expired on 31 May 2024. Continuation of possession of the licensed
premises by the Petitioner after 31 May 2024 is unauthorised under the
provisions of Section 24 of the MRC Act. Petitioner has incurred liability
to pay double the amount of license fees to the licensor upon expiry of
tenure of license. In that view of the matter, there is no valid reason for
interference in the impugned orders.
37) The Writ Petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly
dismissed without any orders as to costs. All pending Interim
Applications are disposed of.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT
Date:
2026.05.05
21:08:30
+0530
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT
Page No. 23 of 23
5 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:37:56 :::