The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a registered leave and license agreement under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 operates as conclusive evidence of the terms agreed upon, rendering collateral challenges to the licensor’s ownership source legally irrelevant. This ruling reinforces the statutory finality of written licensing arrangements in eviction proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Arjun Vitthal Kudhekar, was a licensee under a registered Leave and License Agreement dated 31st December 2018 with the respondent, Mohammed Iqbal Haji Ameeruddin Raja Shaikh. The agreement stipulated a license period from 1st January 2019 to 30th November 2019. Upon expiry, the respondent sought possession under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Competent Authority ordered eviction and payment of dues, a decision later confirmed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner on revision.
Procedural History
- 2019: Leave and License Agreement executed and registered.
- 2022: Competent Authority, Rent Control Court, ordered eviction and payment of arrears.
- 2024: Petitioner filed Revision No.835 of 2024, challenging the order.
- 2025: Additional Divisional Commissioner dismissed the revision, upholding the eviction order.
- 2025: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16700 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the eviction orders, arguing that the respondent was not the lawful owner of the premises, as the property was allegedly acquired using proceeds of a criminal scheme involving fraudulent deposits under the M.P.I.D. Act, 1999. The petitioner offered to surrender possession to the State of Maharashtra, which was reportedly in the process of notifying the property under Section 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the source of funds used by the licensor to acquire the property can be examined in an eviction proceeding under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, when a registered leave and license agreement exists.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that since the respondent allegedly acquired the property through proceeds of a criminal conspiracy under the M.P.I.D. Act, 1999, the respondent cannot claim lawful ownership. Relying on the affidavit filed by the Economic Offences Wing, she argued that the State had initiated proceedings under Section 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act to seize the property, making the respondent’s claim to possession legally untenable. She further submitted that the court should not enforce an eviction order in favor of a party whose title is tainted by criminality.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not contest the validity of the leave and license agreement. The State, though not a party to the original proceedings, was brought into the writ petition as a potential possessor. No formal counter-arguments were filed by the respondent, but the court noted that the statutory framework under Section 24 does not permit inquiry into the source of the licensor’s title.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which states: "an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein." The Court held that this provision mirrors the earlier provision under the Bombay Rent Act, as interpreted in Ramesh Ramrao Hate v. Parvez B. Bhesania. The Court emphasized that the legislature’s intent was to provide finality to written licensing agreements and to shut out any collateral evidence that contradicts the terms therein.
"Once the law says that certain evidence is conclusive it shuts out any other evidence which would detract from the conclusiveness of that evidence. The court has no option to hold the existence of the fact otherwise when such evidence is made conclusive."
The Court clarified that Section 24 proceedings are strictly limited to determining whether a valid license agreement exists and whether it has expired. The licensor’s title, its origin, or any alleged criminality in its acquisition are entirely outside the scope of inquiry. Even if the property is later subject to seizure under the M.P.I.D. Act, the licensee’s obligation to vacate under the license agreement remains unaffected until such time as the State formally takes possession.
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s willingness to surrender possession to the State does not alter the legal position: the State is not a party to the license agreement, and its potential future claim does not invalidate the respondent’s right to enforce the agreement’s terms under Section 24.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s challenge was dismissed. The Court held that a registered leave and license agreement under Section 24 of the MRC Act is conclusive evidence of the terms agreed upon, and the source of the licensor’s funds or alleged criminality in acquisition cannot be raised as a defense in eviction proceedings. The impugned orders were upheld.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Conclusive Evidence Trumps Collateral Allegations
- Practitioners must not raise ownership disputes based on criminal proceeds or money laundering allegations in Section 24 proceedings.
- Any challenge to the licensor’s title must be pursued in a separate civil or criminal forum, not through rent control eviction applications.
State Seizure Does Not Automatically Override License
- Even if a property is under notification for seizure under the M.P.I.D. Act, the licensee remains bound by the license agreement until the State formally takes possession.
- Licensees may offer to surrender possession to the State, but this does not discharge their contractual obligation to the licensor under the agreement.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Courts will not entertain speculative or extraneous allegations that undermine the statutory finality of written agreements.
- Lawyers must focus arguments strictly on the terms of the license agreement and its compliance with Section 24, not on ancillary issues of title legitimacy.
