1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2176 OF 2009 Ajay Kumar Gupta .. Petitioner versus Maharashtra Glass & Agro Ltd (Now known as) Saint Gobain Sekurit India Ltd. .. Respondents Mr.R.N.Sanghavi for the petitioner. Mr.Harinder Toor a/w Mr.Prakash Shinde and Mr.Avinash Singh Gautama i/by J.Sagar & Associates for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATED : 5th March 2010. JUDGMENT : . By order dated 12th October 2009 this Court directed that the writ petition shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st of January 2009 passed by the Competent Authority appointed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). 2. The petitioner filed an application under section 24 of the said Act before the Competent Authority for possession of a residential flat. According to the case of the petitioner, the respondent was allowed to use the said flat under a leave and licence agreement dated 1st July 2 1998 at the licence fee of Rs. 18,000/- per month. The application for eviction was filed by the petitioner as the respondent failed to vacate after expiry of the period of licence. By judgment and order dated 4th August 2005 , the Competent Authority allowed the application and directed the Respondent to vacate the suit flat and to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- per month from 1st June 1999 till the actual date of delivery of possession. The petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Small Causes for recovery of the amount payable under the order of the Competent Authority regarding payment of damages at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- per month. By order dated 26th September, 2008 the learned Principal Judge of the Court of small causes declined to register the plaint on the ground that the order of Competent Authority will have to be executed by the said authority which is competent to execute its own orders. The said order was confirmed in revision application. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for execution before the Competent Authority. By impugned order , the said application has been dismissed by the Competent Authority on the ground that the said authority had no jurisdiction to execute its own orders. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon sub-section 2 of section 24 of the said Act which requires a licensee who does not deliver possession of the premises subject matter of 3 licence to the landlord on expiry of period of licence to pay damages at double the rate of the licence fee of the premises fixed under the agreement of licence. He submitted that in view of decision dated 19th December 2009 of this Court (Coram:A.S.Oka, J.) in Notice No. 1099 of 2009 in Execution Application No. 228 of 2009 in the case of Smt Meera R. Khanna v/s Arun Kumar Ohri, the Competent Authority has jurisdiction to execute its own orders or to transfer the same to competent Civil Court in accordance with section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submitted that the order of Competent Authority is erroneous. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid decision in the case of Smt.Meera R. Khanna v/s Arun Kumar Ohri is not correct and the same requires reconsideration for various reasons. He submitted that the Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to execute its own order. He submitted that while filing the civil suit the petitioner claimed an amount which is much more than the amount payable under the order of the Competent Authority. He invited my attention to the averments made in the plaint. He submitted that considering the conduct of the petitioner, this Court cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction. 5. The operative part of the judgment and order dated 4th August 4 2005 passed by the Competent Authority reads thus: “1) Application (Exh-1) stands allowed. 2) The opponent is directed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the flat completely described in para-1 of Exh-1 to the applicant. 3) The applicant is also entitled to damages at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- p.m from 1/6/99 till actual delivery of possession. 4) No order as to costs.” It is not in dispute that the said order has attained finality and that there is no compliance with clause 3 of the said order. An attempt was made by the petitioner to file a suit for recovery of the damages as per the aforesaid order. However, the Court of Small Causes declined to register the plaint on the ground that the suit was not maintainable. While passing the said order, the learned judge observed thus: “... All the proceedings before the Competent Authority are judicial proceedings. Competent Authority is empowered to execute their own order and the suit for executing the order of Competent Authority is not maintainable in Small Causes Court. Hence, the present suit itself is not maintainable. Hence, it cannot be registered.” Thereafter an application for execution was filed by the petitioner before the Competent Authority. By the impugned order, the Competent Authority held that the provisions of the said Act nowhere provide that the Competent Authority has power to execute of the order for payment of damages. 6. In the case of Smt.Meera R. Khanna v/s Arun Kumar Ohri, this 5 Court considered and decided the following questions: “6. Broadly following issues arise for consideration viz.:- I. Whether the Competent Authority under the said Act has a jurisdiction to issue a direction directing the licensee to pay the damages as contemplated by sub- section (2) of section 24 of the said Act? II. Whether the Competent Authority can be considered as a Court? III. Whether final order of eviction and payment of damages passed by the Competent Authority can be termed as an order or a decree which is capable of being executed under the provisions of the said Code?” As far as the issue involved in this petition is concerned, the same was answered in paragraph 21 of the said decision which reads thus: “21. Section 47 shows that exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on the competent Authority to adjudicate upon the claim of licensor to recover possession of the licensed premises on expiry of period of license either by efflux of time or by revocation thereof. Therefore, insofar as jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to pass final order of eviction and payment of compensation is concerned, the Competent Authority satisfies the tests laid down by Apex Court in the case of Brijnandan Sinha (supra). In the circumstances the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the final order passed by the competent authority under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of section 24 is an order within the meaning of section 2(14) of the said Code. By virtue of section 36 of the said Code, the said order can be executed as if it is a decree. Considering the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of St.Ulai (supra), the competent authority can entertain an application for execution of the order in the same manner in which a decree under the provisions of the said Code is to be executed. The competent authority may 6 itself execute the order or may transfer it for execution to a competent Civil Court in accordance with section 39 of the said Code.” 7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that the view taken by this Court is incorrect and it requires reconsideration. However, this Court is bound by the said decision and therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent will have to be made before appropriate forum. The learned counsel further submitted that conduct of the petitioner of claiming excessive amount by filing a civil suit will have to be considered. The order passed by the Competent Authority of payment of damages has become final and the same has not been complied with. All that the petitioner sought was the execution of the said order. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the view taken by the Competent Authority is illegal and therefore, the impugned order will have to be set aside. 8. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order dated 21st January 2009 is quashed and set aside. (b) The application for execution filed by the petitioner is restored as the same is maintainable in law and as the Competent Authority has jurisdiction to execute its own orders. 7 (c) The Competent Authority will proceed to expeditiously decide the application in accordance with law. (d) The petition is allowed with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)