Bombay High Court
YOGESH SHIVAJI AVHADversusRAVINDRAKUMAR SITARAM GOTARKAR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of any prima facie evidence of a sale agreement and given the expiry of the licence, the petitioner was not entitled to leave to defend and had no right to remain in possession.
Summary
The petitioner, Yogesh Shivaji Avhad, was licensed to occupy premises under a Leave and License Agreement that expired on 9 December 2022. He claimed an oral agreement to purchase the premises for Rs 1.75 crore, having paid Rs 15 lakhs as earnest money, and asserted that he remained in possession as a buyer, not as a licensee. Respondent 1 initiated eviction proceedings under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and the petitioner sought leave to defend under section 43(4)(a), arguing that the proceedings were untenable after the licence expired and that his alleged sale agreement raised triable issues. The Competent Authority rejected the leave to defend, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Authority, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition. The High Court found no prima facie evidence of a sale agreement and held that the licence had clearly expired, leaving the petitioner without any right to remain in the premises. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to leave to defend under section 43(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 after the expiry of the Leave and License Agreement.
- Whether an oral agreement to sell the premises, supported by earnest money, confers a right to occupy the premises pending sale.
- Whether the Competent Authority and Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for leave to defend.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 24, 43(4)(a)
Subjects
- Leave and License Agreement
- Agreement to Sale
- Eviction
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- Leave to Defend
- Civil Writ Petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34637
Diksha Rane 3 WP 10429 2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10429 OF 2026
YOGESH SHIVAJI AVHAD ..PETITIONER
VS
RAVINDRAKUMAR SITARAM
GOTARKAR AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS
Adv. Vipul Dada Patil i/b. Adv. Bhushan Raut for petitioner.
Adv. Sanjay Koban for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for respondent no.3.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026.
Per Court :
1. The present writ petition challenges the order dated 21st
May, 2026 passed by the Appellate Authority (Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Pune), whereby it rejected the application for leave to
defend filed by the petitioner u/s. 43(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act,1999 (for short ‘MRCA, 1999’) and upheld the order
dated 27th February 2026 passed by the Competent Authority.
Page 1 of 3
19th AUGUST, 2026
Diksha Rane 3 WP 10429 2026.docx
2. The petitioner was inducted in the licensed premises by
respondent no.1 under a registered Leave and License Agreement
dated 27th February 2021 for a period of 22 months, commencing
from 10th February, 2011 and expiring on 9 th December, 2022.
During the subsistence of the license, the petitioner claims that
respondent no.1 agreed to sell the premises to him for a
consideration of Rs.1.75 crores, and accepted Rs.15 lakhs as earnest
money pursuant to the alleged oral agreement for sale. The
petitioner, accordingly, claims that after expiry of the Leave and
License Agreement, he continued in possession in pursuance of the
alleged agreement for sale and not merely as a licensee. He also
issued legal notice calling upon the respondent no.1 to specifically
perform the alleged agreement for sale.
3. After expiry of license, respondent no.1 initiated
proceedings u/s. 24 of MRCA, 1999 before the Competent Authority,
Pune, seeking eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner sought leave
to defend u/s. 43 (4)(a) of MRCA, 1999, contending that the
proceedings were not maintainable after expiry of the license, and
that the petitioner had an agreement for sale of the property in his
favour and had paid earnest money and has raised triable issues. The
Competent Authority rejected the application for leave to defend by
order dated 27th February, 2026 and the Appellate Authority i.e.
Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune, dismissed the petitioner’s
appeal and confirmed the said order by order dated 21 st May, 2026.
Page 2 of 3
19th AUGUST, 2026
Diksha Rane 3 WP 10429 2026.docx
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition
challenging the aforesaid orders.
4. No case is made out to interfere as there is no evidence
prima facie in favour of the petitioner that he is occupying the
premises on the basis of the agreement to sale. Agreement to sale is
not produced on record. Leave and License Agreement admittedly
expired on 9th December 2022, and thus the applicant had no right to
continue in the premises after December, 2022.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
Page 3 of 3
19th AUGUST, 2026
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/08/2026 19:43:29
Checking your session…