01Facts
The Petitioner (licensee) entered into a registered leave and license agreement with the Respondent (licensor) for a residential flat for 36 months (June 2021 – May 2024) at a monthly fee of ₹1,30,000
p. 2, para 2The Petitioner claims he spent ₹50 lakhs on renovations based on a separate, non-registered MOU, which allegedly stipulated that this expenditure would be treated as an additional security deposit refundable upon vacating
pp. 2-3, para 3Upon expiry of the license, the Petitioner refused to vacate, demanding the ₹53 lakh total deposit.
p. 3, para 4The Respondent filed an eviction application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (MRC Act). The Competent Authority ordered eviction and double damages (₹2,60,000/month) from June 2024
p. 3, para 4The Revisional Authority confirmed this order on June 6, 2025
p. 4, para 502Issues
i.1. Whether a licensee can refuse to vacate premises after the expiry of a license period on the ground of non-refund of expenditure incurred on renovations
p. 9, para 15ii.2. Whether the Competent Authority, exercising summary jurisdiction under Section 24 of the MRC Act, can take into consideration documents (like an MOU) other than the registered Leave and License Agreement
pp. 14-15, para 23-24iii.3. Whether defects in a Power of Attorney (POA) used to institute eviction proceedings vitiate the entire process if not raised at the first instance
p. 22, para 3403Law Applied
The Court applied Section 24 of the MRC Act, 1999, which mandates that a licensee must deliver possession upon expiry of the license, failing which the landlord is entitled to recovery and damages at double the license fee
p. 11, para 18It followed the summary procedure under Section 43 of the MRC Act, which requires the licensee to obtain "leave to defend"
p. 12, para 19The Court relied on the precedent Sanath Kumar Sanjib Das v. Fernandes Anthony John (2024), which held that the Competent Authority's jurisdiction is limited to the "jurisdictional fact" of the expiry of the license and cannot extend to interpreting collateral MOUs or sale agreements
pp. 15-17, para 24Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 43Section 44
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 3
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the summary nature of Section 24 is intended to provide house owners with a swift remedy to encourage rental housing
pp. 13-14, para 20-22It held that any expenditure incurred by a licensee for renovations is a "risk taken" by the licensee and does not create a right to continue occupation beyond the license term
p. 10, para 17The Court emphasized that the Competent Authority cannot look into complex collateral contracts like the alleged MOU, as doing so would transform a summary proceeding into a lengthy civil suit, defeating the legislative intent
p. 15, para 23Upon reviewing the MOU, the Court found it "incomprehensible" and "incongruous" compared to the registered agreement, noting discrepancies in execution locations (Mumbai vs. Mumbra) and stamp paper origins
pp. 18-22, paras 26-33Regarding the POA, the Court noted the issue was not raised before the lower authority and refused to entertain it given the admitted expiry of the license
p. 22, para 3405Holding
The Court held that the expiry of the license is a "jurisdictional fact" that triggers Section 24, and the Petitioner’s possession became unauthorized as of June 1, 2024
p. 23, para 36The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the eviction and damages order
p. 23, para 37Original Court PDF
Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz FarooquivsHiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
