Bombay High Court: In a writ petition revolving around whether a licensee occupying a residential flat under a registered leave and license agreement could resist eviction by claiming commercial use and asserting a lien arising out of a separate film production contract, a Single Judge Bench of M.M. Sathaye, J., held that the Revisional Authority had misconstrued the agreement and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering extraneous documents, and directed that the eviction order be restored. The Court condemned respondent’s unverified AI-generated submissions which wasted judicial time and ordered immediate possession of the premises to be handed over to the petitioner.
Background:
The petitioner, being the owner and licensor of the suit flat, had granted a license to the respondent. The respondent, an incorporated company represented through its Director, was a film producer and occupied the premises under such license. The petitioner himself was also engaged in the film industry as a director and producer. The petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (‘MRC Act’) contending that the respondent was inducted as licensee in the suit flat under registered leave and license agreement dated 5-1-2007 for a period of 22 months for residential use only. However, the respondent breached the terms and therefore, the petitioner terminated the agreement by notice dated 4-5-2008. The respondent did not comply and instead of vacating suit flat filed a suit alleging that the petitioner agreed to transfer the flat in his favour.
Before the Competent Authority under the MRC Act, the respondent contended that the petitioner had a bad reputation in the industry and that earlier a leave and license agreement was executed on 5-2-2006 and since then respondent was in possession. After the first agreement, the petitioner requested the respondent to give him the opportunity to direct a film, but because of petitioner’s bad reputation, the film could not be released resulting in loss to the respondent. He further alleged that under the film production contract, he had a lien or charge over the flat for the recovery of the amount. It was stated that he was also authorised to use the flat for commercial purposes as per the agreement.
The Competent Authority vide order dated 15-4-2009, directed the respondent to hand over the peaceful possession to the petitioner. But the respondent filed a revision under Section 44 of the MRC Act wherein the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority was set aside by the Revisional Authority, which led the petitioner to file the present petition.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Revisional Authority misconstrued the nature of the agreement and therefore the finding that the respondent has a charge over the flat was perverse. He also stated that the Revisional Authority ignored the clauses of the agreement where it was clearly indicated that the license would be for residential purposes. On the other hand, the Director of the respondent submitted that the premises were being used for commercial purposes evident from the electricity bill. He stated that the petitioner made false and misleading statements with discrepancies regarding possession letter and therefore, an action of perjury could be initiated against him. He submitted that suppression of earlier agreements as well as suppression of approvals from authority also amounted to perjury.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the Revisional Authority had selectively read clauses of the agreement, ignoring crucial provisions such as Clauses 2, 11, 13, and 14, which stipulated residential use only. The Court further noted that the agreement was a registered document and opined that the overall reading of the clauses indicated that the license was granted for residential purposes, which made an application under Section 24 of the MRC Act maintainable.
The Court further observed that the consideration of extraneous documents such as film production contract and the alleged liability arising thereunder, was beyond the scope of Revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRC Act as well as the jurisdiction of Competent Authority under Section 24 of the MRC Act. The Court clarified that Section 44 restricts the consideration to satisfaction of the Revisional Authority about the order of Competent Authority being in accordance with law. The referred to Surendra B. Agarwal v. AML Merchandising (P) Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1409, where it was held that pendency of civil suits or arbitral awards does not affect the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority, and that such extraneous considerations amounted to perversity. The Court opined that issues of title or contractual claims arising from extraneous agreements could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 24 of the MRC Act.
The Court relied on Shantaram Bhikaji Jadhav v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 595, and observed that photographs and electricity bills showing commercial fixtures could only prove use of the flat but could not legalise its commercial user, if the purpose of license was residential. The Court further noted that the Revisional Authority held that the petitioner had failed to show how the respondent came in possession of the flat after handing over its possession, based on an undated possession letter on record.
The Court found that the respondent’s written submissions were AI generated as they contained green-box tick-marks, bullet point-marks, repetitive submissions, and even referred to a case law which could not be found that wasted precious judicial time. The Court opined that if an AI tool is used in aid of research, it is welcome; however, there is great responsibility upon the party, even an advocate using such tools, to cross verify the references and make sure that the material generated by the computer is really relevant, genuine and in existence.
The Court rejected the respondent’s prayer to initiate perjury proceedings and contempt proceedings against the petitioner as record did not show that the petitioner had submitted any false affidavit or made any misleading representation or suppressed material facts. The Court observed that there was no suppression of earlier agreement as the cause of action for seeking eviction of the respondent arose during pendency of the last leave and license agreement and therefore, non-reference to the earlier agreement, if any, could not amount to suppression of material fact. The Court further opined that the respondent’s application was only an attempt to pressurise the petitioner.
Consequently, the Court, while allowing the petition, set aside the Revisional Authority’s order and restored the eviction order of the Competent Authority. The Court directed immediate possession of the flat to be handed over, and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the respondent to be paid to the High Court Employees Medical Fund within 2 weeks.
[Deepak v. Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd., Writ Petition No. 8390 of 2009, decided on 7-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Janay Jain a/w Rishabh Jadhav i/b Parinam Law Associates.
For the Respondent: Mohammed Yasin.