The Bombay High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application and Writ Petition concerning possession over a flat based on disputed lease rights. The Court held that the applicant’s occupation, obtained through a Leave and License Agreement, did not entitle him to claim long-term occupancy under an alleged unregistered lease deed.

The High Court’s judgment addresses the legal status of possession claims based on a license versus an alleged lease. It highlights the invalidity of the unregistered lease deed as a basis for continuing occupation after the license expiry and upholds the Competent Authority's eviction order.

1. Parties Involved and Background

• Applicant Ganesh Arjun Chukkal and his company, Brice Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., contested eviction orders on grounds of an alleged lease with Melronia Hospitality Private Limited.
• Initial entry into the premises occurred under a Leave and License Agreement (2018), which expired in 2021. Applicant claimed a subsequent lease (2019) granting 30+25 years' occupancy.

2. Lease Agreement Dispute

• Ganesh claimed lease rights through an unregistered agreement dated 8 March 2019, despite the existence of a prior license agreement and disputed its termination post-expiration. The court found the alleged lease questionable as it was unregistered and seemingly executed after the licensing entity had dissolved.

3. Competent Authority and Small Cause Court Orders

• Eviction was ordered by the Competent Authority and later upheld, including a directive to vacate the premises. Ganesh attempted to secure an injunction, which was temporarily granted but subsequently vacated on appeal.

4. Legal Standpoint and Analysis

• The Court noted inconsistencies in Ganesh’s claims, recognizing that possession was initially obtained as a licensee through Brice, not under a lease. It emphasized the inapplicability of lease-based protection to possession obtained via license, stating the unregistered lease could not override statutory provisions under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (MRC Act).

5. Final Judgment and Observations

• The Court upheld the eviction order, dismissing the Revision Application and Writ Petition, noting no grounds for continued occupancy existed under the expired license agreement.

Ratio Decidendi:

Possession of property obtained under a license cannot be legally continued under an unregistered lease deed following license expiration. Such possession is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, specifically under Section 24, and cannot be overridden by subsequent unregistered claims of tenancy.

Relevant Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 24: This section deals with eviction proceedings of licensees and holds precedence over unregistered lease claims.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11: Addresses grounds for plaint rejection; invoked by the Respondent in challenging the applicant’s claim.
• Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 107: Governs the requirements for lease agreements, including registration, critical in evaluating the unregistered lease's validity.

Subjects:

Property Law, Lease and License Disputes, Eviction Proceedings

License Agreement, Unregistered Lease, Eviction, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, High Court Judgment, Possession Rights