Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ramchandra B. Relwani, was the owner of a flat in Mumbai. In October 2001, he granted a leave and license to the respondent, Raees Ahmed Faruque, for 11 months, which was later extended by 33 months. When the respondent failed to vacate, the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 before the Competent Authority for eviction. The Competent Authority rejected the respondent's application for leave to defend and passed an eviction order on 6th October 2008. The petitioner then applied for execution under Section 45 of the Act, and on 15th December 2008, the Competent Authority authorized the Superintendent to take possession. Possession was executed on 18th December 2008 under a panchanama and handed over to the petitioner. Meanwhile, the respondent had filed a revision application under Section 44 on 4th December 2008, which was pending. On 30th June 2009, the respondent forcibly re-entered the suit flat. The petitioner lodged an FIR and filed the present writ petition seeking restoration of possession. The court held that the Competent Authority had no power to restore possession to a person who had been lawfully evicted and later trespassed. The respondent's remedy was to challenge the eviction order in revision, not to forcibly re-enter. The court directed the respondent to be evicted and possession restored to the petitioner, with police assistance if necessary.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24 - Eviction of Licensee - Restoration of Possession - Licensee who was lawfully evicted under Section 24 and later forcibly re-entered the premises is not entitled to restoration of possession - The Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to restore possession to a trespasser - Held that the remedy of the licensee, if any, is to challenge the eviction order, not to seek restoration after forcible re-entry (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a licensee who has been lawfully evicted under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and subsequently forcibly re-enters the premises is entitled to restoration of possession.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to be evicted from the suit flat and possession restored to the petitioner. The court held that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to restore possession to a person who had been lawfully evicted and later trespassed. The respondent's remedy was to pursue the revision application, not to forcibly re-enter. The court directed the police to assist in execution if necessary.
Law Points
- Licensee cannot claim restoration of possession after lawful eviction
- Forcible re-entry after eviction does not revive license
- Competent Authority has no power to restore possession to a trespasser
- Section 24 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 is for eviction of licensees
- not for restoration
