1 WP 1903/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1903 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. P.V. Dube for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 22ND JULY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This is a petition by a licensee against whom a decree for possession has been passed by the competent authority and confirmed by the revisional authority. 3. Counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions which are dealt with herein below. 2 WP 1903/10 4. Firstly, the counsel submitted that after the expiry of the period of leave and license, the respondent has accepted a sum of Rs.20,000/- on two occasions towards the license fee and, therefore, this creates a new license. In my view, acceptance of compensation after the period of license, by itself, would not create a new license. If the licensee does not vacate the licensed premises after the expiry of the license period, the licensor cannot be left high and dry till the decree/order of eviction is passed against the licensee. Something more than mere acceptance of some amount as compensation would be required to be proved for the purpose of drawing an inference of extension of a license or creation of a fresh license. In the present case there was no such material. Consequently, the first contention is rejected. 5. Secondly, it was contended that after the expiry of the license, the respondent had 3 WP 1903/10 entered into a separate agreement of sale in respect of the suit premises. Counsel for the respondent disputes having entered into any such agreement and submits that his signature on the alleged agreement is forged. Assuming that the licensor has entered into such agreement, the petitioner is free to file a suit for specific performance and therein claim any appropriate relief. Execution of an agreement for sale would not amount to extension of the existing license. The second contention is also rejected. 6. It was lastly contended that though the parties had agreed that the license would be for a period of 2 years, the respondent changed it to 4 months at the time of registration of the license. Section 90/91 of the Evidence Act prohibits any evidence contrary to the terms of a written agreement signed between the parties. The petitioner, therefore, could not have contended that the license was for a period of 2 4 WP 1903/10 years and and not for a period of 4 months. 7. No other point was urged. 8. Thee is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)