2007 (1) AIR Bom R 601

Bombay High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. M. S. Khandeparkar , J

( A ) Maharashtra Rent Control Act (18 of 2000) S. 55 — Agreement of tenancy or leave and licence — Is to be in writing and required to be registered as per provisions of S. 55 — This requirement is applicable only prospectively — Provisions of S. 55 cannot be enforced retrospectively — Consequently if tenancy or licence was created prior to commencement of Act absence of written agreement would not create any right in favour of either party.Undoubtedly S. 55 of the Act (2000) provides that the agreement of tenancy or the leave and licence should necessarily be in writing and it should be registered under the Registration Act. However, sub-section (1) clearly specifies that such requirement would arise only in cases of the lease or licence created after the commencement of the said Act. Apparently said provision by no stretch of imagination can be enforceable retrospectively. The said Act came into force from 31st March, 2002. In the case in hand, petitioner was inducted in the premises, much prior to the commencement of the said Act. Being so, absence of agreement in writing or registration thereof cannot create any right in favour of either of the parties. (Paras8)

( B ) Maharashtra Rent Control Act (18 of 2000) S. 24 — Recovery of possession — Premises given on licence — Period of licence expired prior to coming into force of Act (2000) — Licencee continued to occupy premises thereafter — Can be evicted in exercise of powers under S. 24. (Paras10)

( C ) Maharashtra Rent Control Act (18 of 2000) S. 24 — Recovery of possession — Premises given on licence — Discrepancy regarding period of licence mentioned in agreement and that was stated by landlord in his evidence — Intention of parties to give premises on leave and licence basis was clear from agreement and deposition of landlord — Mere discrepancy regarding period of licence not sufficient to disbelieve claim of landlord that petitioner was licencee. (Paras13)

( D ) Maharashtra Rent Control Act (18 of 2000) S. 47 — Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Barred in respect of matter to be decided by competent authority under the Act — Pendency of matter regarding grant of injunction before civil Court — No ground to stay proceedings under Act (2000) — Any order of injunction passed by Civil Court cannot be relating to subject matter of dispute under Act (2000) — Hence question of conflict between orders of civil Court and competent authority under Act would not arise. Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 9. (Paras15)