Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by Mrs. Poonam V. Matta (the petitioner) against an eviction order passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Mumbai, in Case No.9/1995. The respondents, Ramesh Daulatram Harjani and Madan Daulatram Harjani, were the landlords of flat no.601/B, located on the 6th floor in Mota Mansion C.H.S. Ltd., Plot No.61, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Bombay. The landlords had given the suit premises on leave and licence to the petitioner pursuant to an agreement dated 1.8.1992. The petitioner, along with her family members, was allowed to use and occupy the premises for a period of 11 months on a monthly consideration of Rs.3000/-. The agreement was renewed vide letter dated 26th May 1993 on the same terms and conditions, and the extended period expired on 31st May 1994. The landlords issued an advocate's notice dated 5th March 1995 terminating the licence and calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises. Since the petitioner did not vacate, the landlords filed an application under Section 13-A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority allowed the application and passed an eviction order. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court examined the nature of the agreement and held that it was a leave and licence agreement, not a lease, and therefore the petitioner was not a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act. The court further held that the Competent Authority had jurisdiction under Section 13-A(2) to order eviction of a licensee. The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Leave and Licence - Section 13-A(2) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - Eviction of Licensee - The landlord filed an application under Section 13-A(2) for eviction of the licensee after expiry of the leave and licence agreement. The Competent Authority allowed the application. The High Court held that the agreement dated 1.8.1992 was a leave and licence agreement, not a lease, and the licensee was not a tenant. The eviction order was upheld. (Paras 1-5) B) Rent Control - Jurisdiction of Competent Authority - Section 13-A(2) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - The Competent Authority has jurisdiction to entertain applications for eviction of licensees under Section 13-A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The High Court confirmed that the Competent Authority's order was within its jurisdiction. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent/licensee, after expiry of the leave and licence agreement, can be considered a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act and whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to pass an eviction order under Section 13-A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application and upheld the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority.
Law Points
- Leave and licence agreement does not create tenancy
- Licensee holding over after expiry of licence period is not a tenant
- Section 13-A(2) of Bombay Rent Act applies to premises let for residence
- Competent Authority has jurisdiction to order eviction of licensee
- Licence agreement for 11 months with monthly consideration is not a lease
