1 WP No.9864/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9864 of 2010 (i) Miss Anuradha Somani (ii)Shri Badrinarayan B. Somani ... Petitioners versus (i) Shri Avadhoot Narayan Pendse (ii)Mrs.Suchitra Avadhoot Pendse (iii)M/s.Vyas Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (iv)Miss Vidya B. Somani ... Respondents ... Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude for the petitioner Mr.V. P. Vaze i/b City Legal fir respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 8th February 2011 P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 15 November 2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division rejecting the revision application made by the present petitioners against an order of the competent authority refusing them leave to defend the eviction proceedings. 2 WP No.9864/10 2. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the suit property. By an agreement of leave and licence, respondent nos. 1 and 2 gave on licence the suit premises to the respondent no.3 which is a private limited company. The present petitioners are the Directors of the respondent no.3. On expiry of the period of licence, the respondent no.3 (licensee) did not vacate the suit premises. The respondent nos.1 and 2 (licensors) therefore filed an eviction proceedings before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act against the respondent no.3. However, since the petitioners as Directors of respondent no.1 were in actual possession, they were also joined as parties to the eviction application so as to avoid any objection to the execution of the order that may be passed. A common application was filed by the respondent no.3 (licensee) and its Directors i.e. the petitioners for leave to defend. While granting leave to defend to respondent no.3 company, the competent authority refused the leave to the present petitioners. That order was confirmed in revision by the Additional Commissioner Pune. The order of the Revisional Authority is impugned in the present petition. 3. In the claim application before the competent authority, the respondent nos.1 and 2 (licensors) have specifically pleaded that only the respondent no.3 company was the licensee. This statement has not been denied by the petitioners in their application for leave to defend. It is thus admitted position that present petitioners are not the licensees but are merely in occupation of the suit premises by reason of being the directors of the respondent no.3 who is the licensee. The present 3 WP No.9864/10 petitioners have no independent right to remain in possession nor do they have any right to defend the proceedings for eviction. The competent authority committed no error in rejecting their application for leave to defend and the revisional authority committed no error in confirming the said error. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that before the revisional authority, respondent nos.1 and 2 had consented for grant of leave to defend. Such a consent, in my view, given at the revisional stage does not confer any right on the present petitioners. 5. In my view, the present writ petition is filed to delay, if not stall the proceedings of eviction pending before the competent authority and is without merit. Hence, writ petition is rejected. Competent Authority is directed to expedite the hearing of the eviction proceedings and decide it in any event within six months. (D.G.KARNIK, J)