Competent Authority Under Maharashtra Rent Act Cannot Examine Documents Beyond Leave & License Agreement In Eviction Proceedings: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the Competent Authority cannot look into documents other than the Leave and License Agreement in a summary inquiry for eviction of a licensee. The Court observed that the inquiry under Sections 24 and 43 of the Act is restricted to examining whether the license period has expired, and that contractual arrangements contained in separate documents cannot be enforced before the Competent Authority.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Revisional Authority directing the petitioner to hand over possession of licensed premises and pay damages at double the license fees after expiry of the license period. The respondent had granted leave and license of a flat to the petitioner for a period of 36 months.

The petitioner claimed that he had spent Rs.50 lakhs towards repairs and renovations of the premises pursuant to a separate Memorandum of Understanding allegedly executed on 4 June 2021, under which the said amount was to be treated as an additional security deposit. The petitioner contended that since the amount had not been refunded, he was entitled to continue in possession of the premises.

The Court observed that a licensee acquires only a limited right to occupy premises during the tenure of the license and that expenditure incurred on renovation or repairs does not create any right higher than that of a licensee. It held that once the license period expires, the licensee is under an obligation to vacate possession and cannot continue to occupy the premises on the ground that expenditure was incurred on renovations.

The Court further observed that the legislature had consciously created a summary remedy under Sections 24 and 43 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act to ensure speedy recovery of possession by licensors. It held that the summary inquiry before the Competent Authority is confined to examining the Leave and License Agreement and whether the tenure of the license has expired. The Court observed that if the Competent Authority is permitted to examine contractual relations arising out of other documents, its jurisdiction would become akin to that of a civil court, defeating the object of the summary procedure.

“Since enquiry before the Competent Authority is summary, it is not expected to look into the documents other than the Leave and License Agreement. Parties may choose to execute multiple documents to complete a transaction, however, when it comes to summary inquiry by Competent Authority, it would look into only the terms and conditions of the license agreement and not into the complex relations sought to be created through other documents,” the Court observed.

The Court also noted inconsistencies between the Leave and License Agreement and the alleged MOU, including clauses in the registered agreement stating that the premises were accepted on an “as is where is” basis and that any additions or renovations would remain the property of the licensor without any entitlement to compensation.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui v. Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi [Writ Petition No. 9525 of 2025]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 237

Click Here To Read/Download Order