1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.160 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.160 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.160 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.4899 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4899 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4899 OF 2008 Jogindersingh D. Saigal .. Appellant vs. Mrs.Rekha M.Bhambhani .. Respondent Mr.G.C.Singh for the appellant Mr.A.P.Kulkarni for the respondent CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 19TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent no.1 had initiated the eviction proceedings before competent authority (Rent Act) against the appellant on account of failure of the appellant to vacate the flat after the expiry of licence. 2 3. By judgment and order dated 28.02.08, the competent authority allowed the application and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the said flat. The appellant was also directed to pay damages to the applicant therein @ Rs.9700 p.m. from 1.3.04 till handing over of vacant possession of the flat. Being aggrieved thereby, writ petition no.4899 of 2008 came to be preferred by the appellant before this court. By order dated 15.7.08, the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, this L.P.A. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is a gratuitous licensee and for this reason the competent authority has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the proceeding. He submitted that this point has not been considered by both the courts below. However, it is an admitted fact that agreement was entered between the parties and admittedly the appellant was paying compensation amount as specified in the said license agreement till the licence period expired. Thus, it is seen that the appellant acted upon the agreement and he paid the amounts stated in the licence agreement till the 3 licence period expired. In such case, the appellant is now estopped from stating that he is a gratuitous licensee. 5. The fact that the appellant continued to be in possession of the premises even after expiry of the licence period without paying any compensation does not make him a gratuitous licensee. The initial entry of the appellant in the suit premises is plainly as a licensee for consideration. Thus, the contention that the appellant is a gratuitous licensee is entirely baseless. Pursuant to the order of eviction, the premises have already been vacated. The appellant has deposited the decreetal amount in this court. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in this court towards decreetal amount. 6. We find no merits in the matter. L.P.A. is dismissed with costs. In view thereof, Civil Application no.163 of 2008 does not survive. The same is also dismissed accordingly. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) 4 (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.)