Dispute Over Licence Rights under Maharashtra Rent Control Act.


03-September-2025 Rent >> Property & Real Estate  

In Mayur Nitin Nagonkar Vs Additional Commissioner Kokan Division Maharashtra and Others, the Petitioner had initially booked two apartments in a housing project named Mohan Mansion, which was being developed by M/s Monish Builders, through Respondent No. 5. The builder, however, did not give possession of the apartments as agreed. One apartment had an Agreement for Sale and the other an allotment letter—but both agreements were violated.

To settle the matter, Respondent No. 5 introduced the Petitioner to Respondent No. 3 and her spouse. Consequently, in the year 2016, a Leave and Licence Agreement was executed for Flat No. 101, A Wing. The Petitioner was informed that Respondent No. 5 would give the licence fee on his behalf.


 

 

The license was periodically extended, and the last extension was done in February 2020 (exemptive till March 2021). The Petitioner was still residing in the flat and asserted that payments were being looked after by Respondent No. 5.

Although, in December 2020, Respondent No. 3 issued a legal notice blaming the Petitioner for not paying rent since September 2020. She terminated the licence agreement and requested him to leave the flat.

The Respondent No. 3 subsequently instituted an eviction case in accordance with Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The concerned authority dismissed the Petitioner's plea to defend himself and issued an eviction order in February 2022. The order asked the Petitioner to:
  • Leave the flat,
  • Pay arrears, and
  • Pay double the licence fee as compensation between March 2021 until he vacated.
The Petitioner contested this in revision before the Additional Commissioner but was defeated again. The Revisional Authority stated he had no right to remain in the flat after the expiry of the licence.

In the High Court, the Petitioner contended his presence in the flat was not merely as a licensee but was tied to the broken promises made by Respondent No. 5, who had verbally agreed to pay the licence fees. He referred to some previous court rulings in favor.

Conversely, Respondent No. 3 contended that there were several registered Leave and Licence Agreements establishing a patent licensor-licensee relationship. She further claimed that any issue between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 was unrelated to her.

The High Court concurred with Respondent No. 3 and made the following salient points:

  • Section 24 of the Rent Act permits only a summary, limited procedure to dislodge a licensee on the basis of registered licence agreements.
  • Such registered agreements are final proof of the relationship and are legally binding.
  • The other claims or grievances of the Petitioner against Respondent No. 5 cannot be dealt with in such a proceeding.
  • The successive renewals of the licence demonstrated the Petitioner was merely a licensee.
  • Any payment by Respondent No. 5 did not alter the legal relationship.
The High Court could not find any legal right for the Petitioner to remain in the flat beyond March 2021. It maintained the eviction order and double compensation principle. The writ petition of the Petitioner was rejected, and he was directed to pay costs.


Section 24, Maharashtra Rent Control Act - 1999  

Section 33, Maharashtra Rent Control Act - 1999  

Section 39, Maharashtra Rent Control Act - 1999  

Section 44, Maharashtra Rent Control Act - 1999  

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999