[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7517 OF 2008 Smt. Manju Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Janki Ramrao Ammanraj .... Respondent Shri S.P. Kanuga i/b Ms Sapna N. Nath for the Petitioner. Ms Nita Parikh i/b Ms N.A. Bharwani for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008 ORAL ORDER: ORAL ORDER: ORAL ORDER: 1. The petitioner/owner of the property has challenged the order dated 14-8-2008 passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Mumbai on the application filed by the petitioner/applicant for directing the respondent/licensee to deposit the amount of compensation in the Court till final disposal of the proceedings. The Competent Authority has dismissed the said application by holding that the applicant can recover the amount by executing the decree; that the foundation of the relationship of licensor-licensee is hotly disputed by the respondent. The relevant section for the purpose of adjudicating the issue in question is Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, hereinafter called as "the said Act", which read as under: [2] "24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained this Act, a licensee, in possession or occupation of premises given to him on licence for residence shall deliver possession of such premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of licence; and on the failure of the licensee to so deliver the possession of the licensed premises, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of such premises from a licensee, on the expiry of the period of licence, by making an application to the Competent Authority, and the Competent Authority, on being satisfied that the period of licence has expired, shall pass an order for eviction of a licensee. (2) Any licensee who does not deliver possession of the premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of licence and continues to be in possession of the licensed premises till he is dispossessed by the Competent Authority shall be liable to pay damages [3] at double the rate of the licence fee or charge of the premises fixed under the agreement of licence. (Emphasis supplied) (3) The Competent Authority shall not entertain any claim of whatever nature from any other person who is not a licensee according to the agreement of licence. Explanation - For the purpose of this section , - (a) the expression "landlord" includes a successor-in-interest who becomes the landlord of the premises as a result of death of such landlord; but does not include a tenant or a sub-tenant who has given premises on licence; (b) an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein." 2. Once the provision makes it clear, as referred above, that the licensee in spite of the expiry of the [4] licence agreement and notice does not deliver possession of the premises to the landlord and continues to be in possession of the licensed premises, therefore, till he is dispossessed by the Competent Authority, he should pay damages at double the rate of the licence fee or charge of the premises fixed under the agreement of license. 3. In my view, once there is specific and clear provision, the Competent Authority has no choice but to pass order accordingly. There is no question of exercising discretion in such matters. Basically when there is no dispute that there was a leave and licence agreement between the parties and based upon the same the licensee is in possession of the premises, any dispute raised in the proceeding under Section 24 of the said Act by the licensee, even challenging the ownership, still that cannot be the reason that such the licensee should not pay the amount pending the proceedings before the Competent Authority. 4. The rejection of the application of the landlord on the ground that the relationship of licensor-licensee is hotly disputed by the respondent is also in no way sufficient reason to overlook the mandate of the said section, as referred above. In such matters there is no question of deciding the rights, as contested or [5] disputed and/or raised by the respondent/licensee. Even if there is such dispute raised, still as per the provision of the law such person after the expiry of the leave and licence period need to pay double the amount of the agreed rent/occupation or licence fee. 5. The reasoning given by the Competent Authority that the applicant/landlord can recover the amount by executing the decree is also incorrect. There is no such intention expressed or impliedly provided in the said section. This, in fact, would frustrate the whole purpose and objection of the said section itself. Once there is a clear provision, there is no question of postponing such direction against the person who in spite of the expiry of the leave and licence agreement, though occupying the premises but not ready to pay the amount as contemplated under the said section. 6. In the present case, though time was granted but the parties unable to settle the matter. Even if there is a mandate by Section 24, as referred above, still in a given case, person like the landlord can settle the matter and agree for a particular amount to be paid pending the decision of the Competent Authority. There is no bar or any hurdle to settle the matter with regard to the same. But once such application is moved by the landlord, the Competent Authority has no choice but to [6] pass order pursuant to the mandate of Section 24. 7. The contention also raised that some amount was paid to one Mrs. Lajwanti Singh who is the co-owner of the property. There is nothing on record to show that such amount was paid to the said Mrs. Lajwanti Singh. There is also no such acknowledgement placed on record. As noted and fact remains that the respondent/licensee did not pay the amount and, therefore, this application was filed. Taking note of all these, in my view, the impugned order is incorrect and needs to be quashed and set aside and the application as filed by the petitioner/landlord deserves to be allowed. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and prayer clause (c), except the bracketed portion. The prayer clauses (b) and (c) read thus: "(b) Order dated 14.08.2008 passed by the Ld. Competent Authority thereby dismissing the Application dated 23.04.2008 filed by the Petitioner be quashed and set aside. (c) The Respondent be ordered and directed to pay damages of Rs.40,000/- [7] per month from 2nd November 2006 in 02.11.2008 amounting to Rs.9,60,000/- and be further directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as damages for month till the Respondents vacates {and handover possession of the premises being Flat No.9 situate at Bhagwati Bhawan, Charmichael Road, Mumbai.} However, liberty is still granted to the parties to settle the matter with regard to the figure or the amount of compensation. . No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp7517.8 sjs/D8wp7517.8 sjs/D8wp7517.8