Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijay Dinkarrao Karanjavane, claimed to be the owner of House No. 328, Nana Peth, Pune, and alleged that he had given a room on the ground floor to the respondent, Rajeev V. Arora, under a leave and license agreement dated 31/8/1992 for 11 months from 1/9/1992 at a license fee of Rs.50 per month. The license was to expire on 31/7/1993, but the respondent did not hand over possession. The landlord filed an application under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent Act before the competent authority at Pune for eviction. The landlord examined himself and the licensee also testified. The license agreement (Exh.20) was placed on record, but the licensee denied having signed it. The competent authority held that the decision in P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal (AIR 1972 SC 608) was not applicable and that there was no evidence to show that the landlord had executed any leave and license agreement in favor of the opponent. Consequently, the competent authority dismissed the application, holding that the landlord failed to prove that the opponent was inducted as a licensee, and thus the authority had no jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the landlord filed a civil revision application in the Bombay High Court. The High Court, per Justice B.H. Marlapalle, examined the evidence and found that the competent authority had correctly appreciated the evidence. The court noted that the licensee had denied his signature on the agreement, and the landlord did not examine any handwriting expert or other witness to prove the execution. The court held that the landlord failed to discharge the burden of proving the licensee relationship, and therefore the competent authority rightly dismissed the application. The revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Licensee Eviction - Section 13A2 Bombay Rent Act - Burden of Proof - Landlord sought eviction of alleged licensee under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Licensee denied signing the agreement - Competent authority held that landlord failed to prove licensee relationship and dismissed application - High Court upheld, finding no error in appreciation of evidence - Held that landlord must prove existence of valid license agreement to invoke jurisdiction under Section 13A2 (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the landlord proved that the respondent was inducted as a licensee in the suit premises, thereby entitling him to eviction under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rent Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the order of the competent authority dated 17/12/1993. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on landlord to establish licensee relationship
- Competent authority's jurisdiction under Section 13A2 of Bombay Rent Act depends on existence of valid license agreement
- Denial of signature on license agreement shifts burden to landlord
