MEENU NAVINCHANDRA MANOCHAversusMERCY JOSE POA HOLDER JOEM JOSE AND ORS

                                                                           15 WP 1899 OF 2026.DOC




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 1899 OF 2026

                      Meenu Navinchandra Manocha                                     …Petitioner
                               Versus
                      Mercy Jose POA Holder Joem Jose and Ors.                   …. Respondents




                      Ms. Gauri K. Jadhav a/w. Ms. Sneha M. Dhatrak, Advocate for the
                      Petitioner.
                      Ms. Kalyani Rathod, Advocate for Respondent No.1.


                                                CORAM:        ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

                                                DATED:        24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                      PC:-

                      1.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.


                      2.      The     present    Petition     challenges   the    order   dated

                      20th November, 2025, passed by the Additional Divisional

                      Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, in Revision Application

                      No. 387 of 2025, confirming the order dated 21st February 2025

                      passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control, Konkan Division,

                      Mumbai, in Eviction Application No. 162 of 2024 filed by
RAJESHRI
PRAKASH               Respondent No. 1 under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent
AHER
Digitally signed by
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
AHER                  Control Act, 1999. By the said order, the Competent Authority
Date: 2026.09.30
12:13:51 +0530




                                                         Page 1 of 5

                      Rajeshri Aher
                                               15 WP 1899 OF 2026.DOC




directed the Petitioner to pay damages at the rate of Rs.90,000/-

per month, being twice the agreed license fee of Rs.45,000/- per

month, for the period from 20th September 2023 to 10 th October

2024. The Petitioner, who had occupied Flat No. 906, 9th Floor,

M.M. Spectra, Shramjivi Nagar, Chembur(E) Mumbai, under a

leave and license agreement, challenges the said orders and seeks

the quashing and setting aside alternatively reduction of the

damages payable, and a direction to Respondent No. 1 to refund

Rs.1,58,000/- towards the alleged losses suffered by her.


3.      The Petitioner initially occupied the suit premises under a

leave and license agreement dated 17 th October 2020 for 24

months, which expired on 19th October 2022. Thereafter, the

parties executed another leave and license agreement dated 28 th

September 2022 for the period from 20 th October 2022 to 19th

September 2023, at a monthly license fee of Rs.45,000/-, with a

refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Petitioner

contends that the parties had verbally agreed to a longer period of

occupation and that, during a meeting held on 14 th January 2024

in the presence of the society office-bearers, Respondent No. 1's

father agreed to refund the security deposit and reimburse certain




                              Page 2 of 5

Rajeshri Aher
                                                15 WP 1899 OF 2026.DOC




amounts allegedly incurred by her. However, the alleged settlement

was not acted upon. Respondent No. 1 initiated Eviction

Application No. 162 of 2024 under Section 24 of the Act. By order

dated 21st February 2025, the Competent Authority directed the

Petitioner to pay damages at twice the agreed license fee for the

period from 20th September 2023 to 10th October 2024, on which

latter date the Petitioner had vacated the suit premises. The

Petitioner challenged the said order by filing Revision Application

No. 387 of 2025, which was dismissed by the Additional Divisional

Commissioner on 20th November 2025, thereby confirming the

order of the Competent Authority. Aggrieved by the concurrent

orders, the Petitioner has preferred the present Petition.


4.      The learned counsel submits that he continued in the

premises as there was a possibility of extension of the license and

that talks on those issues were continuing with the Respondent.

This fact, however, is disputed by the Respondent. The Respondent

approached the Competent Authority for seeking possession of the

suit premises and for seeking eviction, arrears of license fees, and

damages. During the pendency of the proceedings, the licensed

premises were vacated by the Petitioner on 10 th October 2023. The




                              Page 3 of 5

Rajeshri Aher
                                                15 WP 1899 OF 2026.DOC




concerned Competent Authority has passed an order dated 21 st

February, 2025 directing the Petitioner to pay damages to the

licensor at twice the rate of the license fee, equivalent to

Rs.90,000/- per month, from 20th September 2023 to 10 th October

2023. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

amount so directed is onerous and that such amount be reduced.

However, Section 24, Sub-clause (2) statutorily mandates that the

compensation shall be twice the amount of the license fee, as

mentioned in the leave and license agreement. Sub-section (2) of

Section 24 particularly provides that any licensee who does not

deliver possession of the premises to the landlord on expiry of the

period of license and continues to be in possession of the licensed

premises until he is dispossessed by the Competent Authority shall

be liable to pay damages at double the rate of the license fee or

charge of the premises fixed under the agreement of license.


5.      In the instant case, the license fee was fixed at Rs.45,000/-

per month. Accordingly, the Competent Authority has directed

payment of Rs.90,000/- per month after the license period till

handing over possession. It is in line with the express provision of

Section 24(2), of the Rent Control Act.




                               Page 4 of 5

Rajeshri Aher
                                                  15 WP 1899 OF 2026.DOC




6.      In view of this, no case is made out for interference.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.




                                            (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)




                              Page 5 of 5

Rajeshri Aher