DEEPAK SHIVKUMAR BAHRY Vs. HEART AND SOUL ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dtd. 2/9/2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Revision Application No. 132 of 2009 under Sec. 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (?MRC Act? for short). By the said impugned order, the revision application filed by the Respondent is allowed thereby setting aside the Judgment and Order dtd. 15/4/2009 passed by the Competent Authority Rent Act, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Case No. 38 of 2008 under Sec. 24 of MRC Act. By the impugned order, the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority has been set aside.

(2.) Few facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Jain appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Revisional Authority has misconstrued the nature of the leave and license agreement and the finding in the impugned order that the Respondent has a charge/lien over suit flat is perverse. He submitted that the finding in the impugned order that suit flat was to be used for commercial purpose and therefore the application under Sec. 24 of the MRC Act is not maintainable, is perverse. He submitted that only selected clauses of the leave and license agreement are read by the Revisional Authority and clause 2, 11, 13 and 14 of the leave and license agreement clearly indicating the residential purpose of licence, are ignored. He further submitted that merely because suit flat is being used in some other manner (commercial) would not change the ?purpose for which suit flat was given on licence?. He submitted that the Competent Authority has rightly held that in view of the bar under Sec. 30 of the MRC Act against conversion of residential premises into commercial premises, even if Respondent is using the suit flat for commercial purpose, the same cannot be considered as legal defence. He submitted that though the impugned order holds that the application under Sec. 24 of MRC Act is not maintainable, yet the Revisional Authority has held that the Respondent has a lien/charge over suit flat for recovery of amount under Arbitration award. He submitted that Arbitration Award was collusive and the same has been set aside by this Court vide order dtd. 29/4/2011 confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 2/8/2011. He further submitted that the Revisional Authority under Sec. 44 of MRC Act, has no jurisdiction or competence to decide about Respondent having any charge/lien over suit flat arising out of the film production contract. He relied upon following Judgments in support of his case.