IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4004 OF 2008 Hemang Pramod Tanna ...Petitioner Versus The Addl.Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mrs.Rita Bhatia i/b Ms.Priti A.Sutar for Petitioner. Mr.Bomi Patel i/b Mr.Munir Merchant for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. AUGUST 5, 2008. AUGUST 5, 2008. AUGUST 5, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant pleadings and documents on record. 2. This Writ Petition though filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India essentially raises issues which could be conveniently answered in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, I am entertaining this Petition under Article 227 of the : 2 : Constitution. 3. This Petition is directed against concurrent view taken by the two Courts below. Both the Courts below have recorded as of fact that the Petitioner was occupying the suit premises in the capacity of licensee. The initial entry of the Petitioner in the suit premises is that of licensee. It was a written agreement of Leave and Licence dated 1st May 2002. By subsequent written agreement executed between the parties on 1st April 2003, the Petitioner was allowed to continue to occupy the suit premises once again as licensee, which period was extended and/or renewed till 31st March 2004. It is not in dispute that the said agreement is registered on 29th September 2005. 4. In the context of subsequent registration of the said Agreement dated 1st April 2003, it was argued by the Counsel for the Petitioner that the registration was done unilaterally without notice to the Petitioner and will be of no avail. It was argued that the registration, if discarded, the agreement pressed into service will not be in : 3 : accord with the provisions of Section 55 of Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). This argument does not commend to me. The provision contained in Section 55 no doubt obligates the landlord to register the Leave and Licence Agreement, that provision by itself does not provide for specific period within which the license has to be registered. It is a provision which casts obligation on the landlord to get the Leave and Licence Agreement registered. The fact remains that the Leave and Licence Agreement in question dated 1st April 2003 has already been registered. The Petitioner has not taken recourse to any substantive proceedings for declaration that the said registration is invalid or illegal and not binding on the Petitioner. In absence thereof, the registration of the Leave and Licence Agreement dated 1st April 2003 even though subsequent and without notice to the Petitioner will be binding on the parties and will have to be reckoned for the purpose of proceedings under Section 24 of the Act. 5. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioner would then contend that the tenure of : 4 : the said Leave and Licence Agreement expired on 31st March 2004. Notwithstanding that, the Petitioner was allowed to continue to occupy the suit premises till letter of termination was issued in September 2005. According to the Petitioner, therefore, the occupation of the suit premises in possession of the Petitioner for the period between April 2004 and September 2005 was not in the capacity of licensee but the Petitioner occupied the same in her own rights as tenant and for that purpose, the Petitioner has instituted suit for declaration that the Petitioner has become tenant in the suit premises. The fact that Petitioner has filed suit for declaration that she has become tenant in the suit premises, can be no basis to defer the finding to be recorded in the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act. The Courts below have concurrently found that there was a valid Leave and Licence Agreement executed between the parties which subsisted till 31st March 2004. The occupation of the Petitioner in the suit premises for subsequent period was referable to the initial entry in the suit premises as that of licensee. The fact that Petitioner continued to occupy the : 5 : premises after the expiry of license period in terms of agreement dated 1st April 2003, by itself, would not create any new right or status in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, was obliged to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondent/landlord on expiry of the license period as per agreement dated 1st April 2003. The Petitioner did not comply with that obligation. Instead, the Petitioner insisted the Respondent/landlord should allow the Petitioner to occupy the suit premises at least till 30th June 2005 which is reflected in the communication sent by the Petitioner to the landlord on 29th August 2004 at page 164 of the paperbook. Thus understood, the occupation of the Petitioner was not on account of any new status acquired by the Petitioner; but continued to be one as licensee in terms of agreement dated 1st April 2003 even after the expiry of the license period. The Petitioner having failed to vacate the suit premises inspite of sufficient indulgence, the Respondent/landlord was forced to issue letter of termination and take recourse to remedy under Section 24 of the Act in connection with the said Leave and Licence : 6 : Agreement dated 1st April 2003. In the fact situation of the present case, therefore, remedy under Section 24 of the Act was perfectly legitimate and permissible. 6. The argument of the Petitioner that there was no written agreement for the period after 1st April 2004 till 29th September 2005, therefore, to treat the status of the Petitioner as otherwise than a licensee, will have to be stated to be rejected. In substance, that is what has been done by the two authorities below. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, no interference with the said finding of fact recorded by the two authorities below is warranted. 7. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner continued to occupy the suit premises on account of the fact that there was understanding reached between the parties that the Respondent/landlord would transfer and sell the suit premises in favour of the Petitioner for a consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs). Pursuant to the said understanding, the : 7 : Petitioner, besides the deposit amount, paid further amount to the Respondent/landlord and the occupation of the Petitioner of the suit premises therefore was in part performance of the said transaction. Significantly, the Petitioner has not thought of filing a substantive suit for relief of specific performance of the stated agreement. The limitation period for filing such a suit is obviously over. The Petitioner as back as in August 2004, was well aware about the stand of the Respondent/landlord in relation to the stated transaction. Suffice it to observe that the argument of the Petitioner that the occupation of the Petitioner in the suit premises is that of part performance of agreement to sell is an argument of desperation. 8. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the view taken by the two authorities below that the Petitioner continued to occupy the suit premises in the capacity of licensee even after the expiry of the license period provided in the agreement dated 1st April 2003. The same does not warrant any interference. That is the correct : 8 : position emerging from the record, both on facts as well as in law. 9. In the circumstances, this Petition is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed. 10. While parting, it may be placed on record that the fact that the order of eviction passed by the authorities below has already been acted upon in execution proceedings and the possession of the suit premises has been made over to the landlord as back as on 9th March 2007 is not disputed. According to the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises and the Petitioner would be entitled at least to return of articles lying in the suit premises. That is a matter which will have to be addressed in the execution proceedings. Nevertheless, the Counsel for the Respondent/ landlord, on instructions, states that the Respondent has no objection if the Petitioner takes away all the personal belongings of the Petitioner lying in the suit premises within four weeks from today, if so advised. The Petitioner may intimate : 9 : the date on which the Petitioner proposes to visit the suit premises to the Respondent/landlord well in advance. 11. Petition disposed of the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.