KBP 5110-09.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5110 OF 2009 Meena Mukund Devrukhkar ..Petitioner Vs. Vijay Waman Kulkarni and others ..Respondents ......... Mr.R.J.Thakkar i/b.Mr.Paras N.Vira, for petitioner. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 24 th August, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner had applied under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The said application has been rejected and the order of competent authority has been confirmed in the Revision. 2] The application was dismissed on the ground that application under section 24 was maintainable only when premises are given on licence for residential use. It is held that in the present case the premises were given for non residential use. The perusal of the Application made by the petitioner before the competent authority shows that the petitioner is relying upon an agreement of leave and licence dated 7 th December, 2005. The sub-clause (b) of Clause 11 of the said agreement clearly provides that the licensee shall KBP 5110-09.doc 2 use the licensed premises for the purpose of office and not for any other purpose. 2] The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that it was permissible to use a part of the licensed premises for residential use. He invited my attention to the oral evidence of the parties and submitted that the true intention of the parties is not reflected in the agreement and therefore only on the basis of agreement it cannot be held that the competent authority has no jurisdiction. 3] I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The remedy under Section 24 of the said Act of 1999 is available only in relation to the premises given for residence. In the application under Section 24 filed by the petitioner, he is relying upon the agreement dated 7 th December, 2005. The licensed premises as described in the agreement is a portion of Flat No. 603, 6 th Floor, New Samadhan Dattaguru (SRA) Co.op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Market Lane, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 038 admeasuring about 225 sq.feet. Sub-clause (b) of clause no.11 of the agreement is crystal clear which prohibits the licensee from using the suit premises for any other purposes than the use as his office. When the agreement on which the reliance is placed by the applicant contains such a clear stipulation, it is not open for the applicant to contend that it was agreed between the parties that a part of the licensed premises was to be permitted to used for the residential use. Therefore, on plain reading of the agreement on which the petitioner has relied upon it is obvious that Section 24 of the said Act has no application. Hence, no case is made out for interference. It is obvious that as the competent authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application, the findings recorded by the competent authority on other issues will not come in the way of the petitioner in taking recourse by the appropriate remedy available. KBP 5110-09.doc 3 3] Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. )