Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a school operating as a licensee in premises owned by the respondent, was directed by the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to hand over vacant possession and pay double the license fee (Rs.10,000 per month) from 18 June 2020 until possession is delivered. The school challenged this order before the Additional Divisional Commissioner (Rent Act), Nashik, under Section 44 of the Act, which dismissed the appeal on 25 August 2025. Aggrieved, the school filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The court noted that the license had been terminated and the school had no legal right to continue in possession. The court found no perversity or error of jurisdiction in the orders below and dismissed the petition, upholding the eviction and double license fee.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Licensee's Eviction - Section 24 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Competent Authority ordered vacant possession and double license fee against school which continued in possession after termination of license - Appellate Authority under Section 44 upheld the order - High Court in writ petition under Article 227 found no perversity or jurisdictional error - Held that a licensee whose license is terminated has no right to remain in possession and must vacate (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority and Appellate Authority correctly ordered eviction and double license fee against the petitioner-school which continued in possession after termination of license.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Competent Authority and the Additional Divisional Commissioner.
Law Points
- Licensee's right to remain after termination
- Section 24 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Section 44 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Eviction of licensee
- Double license fee
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 304
Writ Petition No. 16995 of 2025
Mr. Jayendra Khairnar a/w. Mr. Harsh Nishar a/w. Ms. Gauri Kulkarni and Ms. Aleema Bohra, for the Petitioner. Mr. Aditya S. Chandak, for the Respondent.
D. G. M. & A Operated S. A. B. English Medium School through Principal Ashwini Harish Suryawanshi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging eviction order and double license fee under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order dated 25 August 2025 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner (Rent Act), Nashik and order dated 23 August 2024 passed by Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Nashik.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was directed to handover vacant possession and pay double license fee after termination of license.
Previous Decisions
Competent Authority on 23 August 2024 ordered eviction and double license fee; Additional Divisional Commissioner on 25 August 2025 dismissed appeal under Section 44.
Issues
Whether the Competent Authority and Appellate Authority correctly ordered eviction and double license fee against the petitioner-school which continued in possession after termination of license.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued against the orders of eviction and double license fee.
Respondent supported the orders.
Ratio Decidendi
A licensee whose license is terminated has no right to remain in possession and must vacate the premises. The Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has jurisdiction to order eviction and double license fee. The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere unless there is perversity or jurisdictional error.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Mr. Jayendra Khairnar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Chandak, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.
By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 25th August 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner (Rent Act), Nashik Division, Nashik in Appeal/Revision No.275 of 2025 filed under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as also to the order dated 23rd August 2024 passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Nashik Division, Nashik in Application No.4 of 2023 filed under Section 24 of the Rent Act.
By the impugned order of the Competent Authority, the Petitioner has been directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the subject premises and further has been directed to pay license fee at the double rate i.e. Rs.5,000/-x 2= Rs.10,000/- per month from 18th June 2020 till handing over the possession of the subject premises.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Application No.4 of 2023 under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 before the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Nashik Division, Nashik. The Competent Authority passed an order on 23 August 2024 directing the petitioner to handover vacant possession and pay double license fee. The petitioner appealed under Section 44 of the Act before the Additional Divisional Commissioner (Rent Act), Nashik Division, Nashik, who dismissed the appeal on 25 August 2025. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 20 December 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 24, 44
- Constitution of India: 227
