[Rent Control Act] In Eviction Suits, Licensee Can't Lead Evidence Contrary To Leave & License Agreement Even If It Is Unwritten: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has explained the scope of Section 24 (b) read with Section 43(4) Of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

The Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed that “The presumption under clause (b) of explanation to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is applicable only when an Application for eviction is filed relating to the premises given on licence for residence. In other proceedings, the said presumption may not apply. Therefore, notwithstanding the non-registration of an Agreement in writing of leave and licence in respect of the premises given for residential use, when an Application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is made, the said clause (b) will apply to such an Agreement and it will not be open for the licencee to lead any evidence contrary to the terms and conditions provided in the said Agreement.”

The petitioner submitted that in view of Explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 no other evidence which is contrary to the terms and conditions of written leave and license agreement can be led and the said terms are conclusive of the facts stated therein.

The respondent submitted that the Respondents are in possession of the premises since 2011. The last leave and license agreement was executed on 16th June 2018 and the same expired by efflux of time on 15th June 2020. He states that the Application is filed on 9th November 2023. It was further submitted that after the said period of leave and license agreement comes to an end, the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents is no more of licensor and licensees and therefore the Application is not maintainable.

The bench while dealing with the first issue observed that in several judgments, the scheme under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 which is similar to Section 24 read with Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Act is considered.

Regarding the second issue the bench observed that while considering leave Application in the proceeding filed by the licensor against the licencee as contemplated under Section 24, special rule of evidence as contemplated under explanation (b) to Sub Section 3 of Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is required to be considered and will apply.

“The licensor can only raise the contentions, even for obtaining leave, which are permitted by said special rule of evidence i.e. explanation (b) to Sub Section 3 of Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act which provides that an Agreement of Licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein. However, it is clarified that the same will not apply to the case where it is the claim of the licencee that the Agreement in question has been brought into existence as a fraud. In that case, however, it is required to be prima facie, decided by the Competent Authority that the said defence is not moonshine defence”, stated the bench.

The bench observed that the period of leave and license agreement is from 16th June 2018 to 15th June 2020. It is further agreed between the parties that licensee shall hand over possession to the licensor after completion of 24 months i.e. 15th June 2020. As per Explanation (b) to Section 24 of the MRC Act, terms and conditions in the written leave and license agreement are conclusive of the facts stated therein. Thus, the Competent Authority cannot take into consideration the evidence which is contrary to the written terms of the leave and license agreement.

In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition.

Case Title: Ram Shankar Sinha v. Ritesh V. Patel & Anr.

Case Number: CIIVL WRIT PETITION NO.3767 OF 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Alizain Patel

Counsel for Respondent: Nilesh L. Makwana a/w Lajri H. Panchal

Click Here To Read/Download Order