1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LPA NO.260/2011 IN WP NO.807/2011 (D) AND MCA NO.331/2011 [Amit Sushil Porwal and another .vrs. Smt. Anagha Arun Mhaisalkar and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate for the appellants, Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for respondent no.1, Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.2 and 3. .......... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 21, 2011. Heard Advocate Shri S.V. Purohit for the appellants, Advocate Shri R.D. Bhuibhar for respondent no.1 and Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.2 and 3. The proceedings filed for recovery of possession under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) have been allowed by the competent authority and revision against it has been dismissed by respondent no.3. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge of this Court was approached and the learned Single Judge 2 has dismissed the petition. The request for granting of time to vacate the premises was made and accordingly six weeks time was granted but then review application was filed. After rejection of that application, present letters patent appeal has been filed. This Court has, by order dated 15.6.2011, condoned the delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal. Contention of Shri Purohit is that the arrangement between the parties was lease and could not have been treated as licence. The admissions given by landlady before the competent authority have not been properly evaluated and citations have not been looked into. He further contends that the provisions of Section 24 and 55 of the said Act have not been properly interpreted. According to Advocate Shri Bhuibhar, the appellants were inducted as licencee on 1.3.2000 i.e. before coming into force the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and, therefore, the provisions of registration is mandatory under Section 55 of the Act are not applicable. He relies upon explanation to Section 24 of the Act to urge that document in writing is the conclusive proof and it has been acted upon. He further states that the appellants never entered into the witness box and has been making roving efforts only to delay vacation of premises. 3 We have perused the records as also the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.4.2011 and we find that the provisions of Section 24 of the Act as also the provisions of Section 55 of the Act have been correctly appreciated. Our attention has been invited to admissions (as alleged) given by landlady in her cross examination before the competent authority. The appellants have not pointed out how they entered the possession of premises and there is no other documents, except the document dated 1.3.2000 filed on record. The appellants have also not entered the witness box. Definition of Licensee as contained in Section 7 of the Act covers a person who is in possession of the premises under a subsisting Agreement. As such, we do not see anything wrong with the concurrent order passed by the authorities. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, rejected. At this stage, upon instructions, Advocate Shri Purohit for the appellants seeks time till 30th September, 2011 to vacate the premises. Request is being opposed by Advocate Shri Bhuibhar for respondent no.1, who contends that this Court may in its discretion, at the most, allow time of two months. In the circumstances, we grant time till 30th September, 2011 to appellants to vacate the premises, 4 subject to filing their undertaking before Registry of this Court in that respect by 30th June, 2011 with advance copy thereof to be served upon the respondents. The respondents will be free to execute the decree if such undertaking is not filed. The respondents are also free to prosecute further the pending execution proceeding in so far as the monitory part thereof is concerned. Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande