: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.783 OF 2009 Ms.Mahua Daas ... Applicant V/s. Balram Sharma ... Respondents Mr.R.A. Thorat for Applicant Mr.P.S. Dani Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 17, 2009 P.C.: 1. The applicant has moved this Court against the orders passed by the competent authority and by the revisional authority confirming the order passed by the competent authority. The applicant was a licencee in the premises of the respondent licensor. After the period of the licence came to an end, the licensor sought her eviction by moving the competent authority. The licensor claimed that there was a written leave and licence agreement and that the period of the licence had ended by efflux of time. The competent authority has allowed the application and has directed that the applicant be evicted. 2. During the pendency of the application u/s 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the applicant herein filed an application for leave to defend the eviction proceedings. The main grounds on which this application was opposed was that (i) : 2 : the applicant had entered into an oral understanding with the respondent herein that she would be permitted to stay in the suit premises till she attained some success as a model; (ii) the document of leave and licence was not registered; and (iii) in any event she had not signed any such document. The Competent Authority held that there were no triable issues and, therefore, dismissed the application. Simultaneously, the application for eviction was allowed. 3. The revision application filed against both these orders has been rejected. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the procedure adopted by the competent authority of deciding the application for leave to defend and the application u/s 24 immediately thereafter is not correct. He submits that once the application for leave to defend had been rejected, the applicant ought to have been granted some time to prefer a revision application so that she could obtain requisite orders for leave to defend. It is further submitted that it is only after this period as stipulated by the competent authority had expired that it could have passed a decree for eviction. 4. This submission cannot be accepted. The competent authority has refused leave on certain grounds, Once that leave was refused, the order for eviction automatically follows in view of the provisions of sections 24 and 43 of the Act. Section 43 is contained in Chapter VIII of the Act and has an overriding effect. This Chapter deals with the summary disposal of certain applications including an application u/s 24 of the Act. The section provides that if leave is not granted, the statements made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted. Therefore, there is no need to wait till a decision is obtained from the : 3 : revisional authority. The present procedure does not in any manner cause prejudice to the applicant since she would have a right to impugn both the orders, one refusing leave to defend and the other passed on the eviction application. 5. The other submission of the learned advocate for the applicant is that in view of the fact that the agreement was not registered and the applicant had in fact denied having executed such an agreement a triable issue had been raised. The submission of the learned advocate for the applicant is that in view of the provisions of section 55(2) of the Act, the rule of evidence contained therein provides that in the absence of a written registered agreement, the contention of the licencee with respect to the terms and conditions of the licence must prevail, unless proved otherwise. The competent authority as well as the revisional authority have found that once there is a document of leave and licence whether registered or unregistered it must be accepted as proof of a leave and licence agreement. If the term of that agreement has come to an end, the decree for eviction must automatically follow. 6. In my opinion, the aforesaid submission also cannot be accepted. It is true that a leave and licence agreement must be compulsorily registered u/s 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The judgment of this Court in the case of Raj P. Kondur v. Arif T. Khan., 2005(4) Bom.C.R. 383 and Anajli Jayant Gandhi v/s. Ramesh Gopal Vagholikar, 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 537 specifically provides so. However, this controversy is no longer res integra in view of the judgment in Raj P. Kondur (supra). It has been held that an unwritten leave and licence agreement is conclusive evidence. Further, it has been observed that to read the expression “written and registered” agreement in section 24 would do violence to the statutory provision. : 4 : Therefore, summary eviction proceedings under Chapter VIII can be initiated by the licensor irrespective of whether the leave and licence is a registered document. Thus non registration of a leave and licence agreement would not ipso facto entitle the licencee to leave to defend the application for eviction. 7. The learned advocate has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.Raju v/s. C.Sathammai, (2008) 2 SCC 583 where in a case of a summary suit inconsistent pleas were raised in defence the court held that the High Court had taken a hypertechnical view in the matter as the defendant was an illiterate and uneducated person. This decision has no application in the present case. The procedure for eviction of a licencee for overstaying the period of licence is delienated in the Act and has been followed in this case. 8. In these circumstances, the civil revision application is rejected. 9. The compensation payable under the statute must be paid by the applicant within four weeks. The decree for eviction shall not be executed for eight weeks.