*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9528/2009 Ila Chandrakant Joshi and others. ..Petitioners -VERSUS- Shashi Prithviraj Sachdev and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Prem Sood, Advocate i/b Mr.P.G. Vora, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Kapilkumar Prithviraj Sachadev, the Respondent No.2 herein present in person who is holding the Power of Attorney for the Respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 20th November, 2009. PC:- 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and Shri Kapilkumar Sachadev, the Respondent No.2 who is present in person. 2 The original licensor/ predecessor in title of the Respondents instituted a suit for ejectment and possession against the present Petitioners/ licensees bearing No.171/199/1983. The predecessor in title of the present Petitioners filed a suit bearing No. 5436/1986 against the licensor for declaration that the licensee is a *2* tenant. It is an admitted position that the predecessor in title of the present Petitioners was inducted as a licensee under the leave and licence agreement dated 03.01.1971 and the period of licence was of eleven months which expired in November, 1972. The suit filed by the licensor/ Respondents came to be decreed by the Trial Court and an appeal directed against the said judgment and decree for possession is also dismissed by the Appellate Court. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners/licensees have filed the present Writ Petition. 3 Both the Courts below have concurrently held that after expiry of term of the leave & license agreement, the Petitioners ceased to be the licensees. It is also finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that after expiry of term under the leave and license agreement, the Licensor stopped issuing receipts. In exchange of notices between the parties, the Licensee (Petitioners) asserted that he has become a deemed tenant by virtue of Section 15(A) of the Bombay Rent Act whereas the Licensor (Respondents) asserted that as the license period has expired in November, 1972 and as the license is not renewed thereafter, the licensee does not become a tenant and no protection under Section 15(A) of the Bombay Rent Act is available to the present Petitioners/ Licensee. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record have held that the Licensee was not in possession of the premises in question under the ‘subsisting agreement’ of license and as such, is not entitled for protection under Section 15(A) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is also recorded that the Licensor after expiry of term of license did not, at any point of time, treat the license as subsisting. *3* 4 On conjoint reading of Section 15(A) and the definition of “Licensee”, it is crystal clear that only if the Licensee is in possession of the premises on 1st February, 1973 under the ‘subsisting agreement of license’ then only he would be deemed tenant and not otherwise. As the present Petitioners were not in possession of the premises under the ‘subsisting agreement of license’, the claim made by the Petitioners that they are deemed tenants has been rightly rejected by the Courts below. In the result, there being no merit in the petition, the same deserves to be dismissed. 5 At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Petitioners are in possession of the premises since the year 1971 and hence, they need to be granted reasonable time to vacate the premises. In the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners one year period would be reasonable. In response to the same, the Respondent No.2, in all fairness, did not object to grant of one year’s time to the Petitioners to vacate the premises, however, submitted that time as prayed for be granted subject to filing of an usual undertaking by the Petitioners and subject to payment of compensation w.e.f. 01st January, 2008 till date and for further period for which the Petitioners would be continuing in possession of the premises. 6 In that view of the matter, though the Writ Petition is dismissed, I direct that the decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of one year from today. The Petitioners shall vacate the suit premises on or before 20th November, 2010. The Petitioners shall file an undertaking in this Court within a period of *4* two weeks from today under the signatures of all Petitioners that they shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises on or before 20th November, 2010. The undertaking shall also include a statement that the Petitioners shall not create any third party interest in the premises and shall not part with possession thereof in any manner. The Petitioners shall also pay the amount of compensation from 01st January, 2008 till date at the rate of Rs. 185/- per month within a period of two weeks from today and shall continue to pay the compensation every month before 10th day of the said month without fail. This order is subject to filing of an undertaking by the present Petitioners as indicated herein above. In the event if the Petitioners fail to file an undertaking it shall be open for the Respondents to execute the decree for possession. 7 Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)