1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8167 OF 2009 Kumari Charusheela Dharmaraj Patil. .. Petitioner Vs Shri Haridas Atmaram Sontakke. .. Respondent -- Shri A.S. Rao for the Petitioner. Shri D.K. Ghaisas for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C: . Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date. 2. The Respondent made an application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 before the Competent Authority. According to the case of the Respondent, the Petitioner was inducted as a licensee in respect of the suit flat under a Leave and License Agreement dated 19th June, 2007. The license fee was fixed at the rate of Rs.1,600/- per month. The case made out by the Respondent in the application is that on completion of the period of license, the Petitioner did not vacate the suit flat and, therefore, a notice was issued calling upon him to vacate the same. As the suit flat was not vacated, an application for eviction was filed. 3. An application for seeking leave to defend the application for eviction was made by the Petitioner. The contention raised in the 2 application in short was that the Respondent had agreed to sell the suit flat to the Petitioner for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is alleged that the earnest amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid to the Respondent and further amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid to the Respondent in cash. It is stated that the Respondent did not execute document of sale and assured that since the Petitioner was placed in possession, she should not be unduly worried. The allegation is that when the Petitioner was alone in the suit flat, the Respondent visited the suit flat and obtained the signature on a blank paper stating that the same was required for executing the agreement for sale. The application for seeking leave to defend made by the Petitioner was rejected by the Competent Authority. Thereafter, the Competent Authority proceeded to pass an order of eviction and payment of compensation. A revision application was preferred under Section 44 of the said Act which has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that there were several triable issues raised by the Petitioner and therefore leave to defend ought to have been granted. He submitted that a specific case of the Petitioner was that an agreement for sale was agreed to be executed. He submitted that the leave and license agreement on which reliance is placed is not a registered document. He, therefore, urged that the relationship of licensor and licensee was not established by the Respondent. He submitted that additional Commissioner has passed a very cryptic order while deciding with the statutory revision application. 3 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Going by the case made out by the Petitioner, the signature on leave and license Agreement is not disputed. However, it is contended that the signature was taken of the Petitioner on a blank paper under the pretext that the same was required for the execution of the agreement for sale. It must be stated here that going by the case made out by the Petitioner, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid as earnest money and the amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by her in cash and the balance consideration was to be paid in the year 2007. It must be stated here that the application for eviction was filed in May, 2008. It is not the case made out by the Petitioner that on the basis of the alleged agreement for sale, a notice has been served by the Respondent calling upon him to execute an Agreement for sale. 6. In the application for eviction the Respondent has placed reliance on the notices dated 12th November, 2007 and 20th February, 2008 issued by the Advocate for the Respondent. The first notice was for calling upon the Petitioner to come before the Sub-Registrar for the purposes of registration of the leave and license agreement. The second notice was issued for calling upon the Petitioner to vacate. Perusal of the application made by the Petitioner seeking leave to contest the application shows that it is not disputed that the notices were served. There is no reply issued to both the notices issued in respect of the leave and license agreement. No dispute was raised by the Petitioner by sending reply. 4 7. The Revisional Authroity has observed that the argument of the Petitioner was that there was an oral agreement for sale. There does not seem to be any serious dispute about the leave and license agreement. The case of the Petitioner that the signatures were obtained by the Respondent on the blank paper appears to be an afterthought. Once there is a leave and license agreement relating to the residential premises and once it was proved that the period of license has expired, the Competent Authority was right in passing the order of eviction. Considering the scheme of Section 24 of the said Act, the order of eviction must follow. In the circumstances, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned orders. Notwithstanding the order of eviction, it is always open for the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings for seeking enforcement of the alleged oral agreement for sale and the finding recorded by the authorities will not affect the merits of such a suit. 8. No case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. 9. The order of eviction shall not be executed for a period of six weeks from today, subject to condition that the Petitioner will not create any third party interests in respect of the suit flat and will not part with possession thereof. (A.S.OKA, J) ash