Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui, was a licensee of Flat No. 143, B-Wing, 14th floor, Heera Panna CHS, Tulsiwadi, Mumbai, under a registered leave and license agreement dated 2 June 2021 for a period of 36 months from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2024. The license fee was Rs. 1,30,000 per month, and a refundable security deposit of Rs. 3,00,000 was paid. The Petitioner claimed that the flat required substantial renovations and that it was agreed that he would spend Rs. 50 lakhs on repairs, which would be treated as an additional security deposit. He alleged that the Respondent, Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi, failed to refund this amount and therefore he continued to occupy the premises after the license expired. The Respondent filed Eviction Application No. 240 of 2024 before the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Petitioner was served summons but did not seek leave to defend; instead, he filed a written statement. The Competent Authority passed an order on 20 March 2025 directing the Petitioner to hand over vacant possession and pay damages at double the license fee (Rs. 2,60,000 per month) from 1 June 2024. The Petitioner's revision before the Additional Divisional Commissioner was dismissed on 6 June 2025. The High Court, under Article 227, examined whether the Petitioner could resist eviction based on the alleged additional security deposit and improvements. The Court noted that the license period had expired and the Petitioner had no right to continue occupation. The claim of additional security deposit was unsupported by any documentary evidence, and the Petitioner failed to seek leave to defend in the eviction proceedings. The Court upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissed the writ petition, and directed the Petitioner to vacate within eight weeks and pay arrears of damages. The Court also disposed of the interim application for stay.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Eviction of Licensee - Section 24 - Leave to Defend - The Competent Authority under Section 24 of the MRC Act passed an eviction order against the licensee for non-compliance with the license terms. The licensee failed to seek leave to defend and instead filed a written statement. The Court held that the Competent Authority correctly allowed eviction as the licensee did not seek leave to defend and the license period had expired. (Paras 1-4) B) Maharashtra Rent Control Act - License - Expiry of Term - Section 44 - Revision - The Additional Divisional Commissioner dismissed the revision against the eviction order. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the licensee has no right to remain in possession after the license period ends, and claims of additional security deposit or improvements do not justify continued occupation. (Paras 5-10) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Additional Security Deposit - The licensee claimed to have paid an additional security deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs and spent the same on renovations, but failed to produce any documentary evidence such as receipts or bank statements. The Court held that the burden of proof lies on the licensee to establish such claims, and in the absence of evidence, the claim cannot be entertained. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner, as a licensee, is entitled to continue occupation of the licensed premises after expiry of the license period on the ground that the Respondent failed to refund the security deposit and reimburse renovation costs.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld the eviction orders, and directed the Petitioner to hand over vacant possession within eight weeks and pay arrears of damages at double the license fee from 1 June 2024. The interim application was disposed of.
Law Points
- Licensee must vacate after expiry of license term
- No right to continue occupation after license expiry
- Leave to defend must be sought in eviction proceedings under MRC Act
- Additional security deposit claims must be proved by documentary evidence
- Improvements by licensee do not create right to remain in possession
