Mr. Kiran Namdev Jagdale vs Mr. Dhairyasinha Vasantrao Patil

The appellant/original defendant takes exception to judgment and decree dated 11.06.2025 passed by District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.142/2024, thereby upholding judgment and decree dated 08.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli in Special Civil Suit No.14/2022.

The respondent/plaintiff is owner of shop admeasuring 81.78 sq. mtrs. situated on Western side of CTS No.465 within local limits of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation. He let out suit property to defendant under registered leave and license agreement dated 30.07.2016 till 27.07.2021. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited by defendant towards security. The agreed license fee was Rs.16,000/- per month for first thirty months and Rs.18,500/- per month for balance period. According to plaintiff, term of leave and license agreement expired on 27.07.2021. However, defendant failed to hand over vacant possession of suit property. Hence, he filed suit for possession and recovery of arrears of license fee. It is contention of plaintiff that in year 2021, he borrowed hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/-from defendant. He refunded amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. However, defendant has withheld possession of property and demanding amount of Rs.8,10,000/- from plaintiff for vacating suit property.

The defendant filed written statement and took plea that he is tenant in suit property. The intention of parties was never to enter into leave and license agreement. There is relationship of landlord and tenant. He is statutory tenant in property and even after expiry of period of agreement, plaintiff has accepted rent from him.

The Trial Court framed issues based on pleading of parties, recorded evidence and finally decreed suit directing defendant to deliver vacant possession of suit property to plaintiff. The Trial Court concluded that agreement dated 30.07.2017 between plaintiff and defendant was leave and license, term of which was over by efflux of time. Aggrieved defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.142/2024 before District Judge. However, District Court concurred with findings recorded by Trial Court and dismissed Appeal.

Mr. Anilkumar Patil, learned Advocate appearing for appellant submits that circumstances on record would reveal that intention of parties was to lease suit property. Although agreement dated 30.07.2016 is titled as leave and license agreement, conduct of parties would depict that it was on lease. He relies upon following circumstances to support his contentions:

Per contra, Mr. Tejas Dande, learned Advocate appearing for respondent would invite attention of this Court to terms of registered agreement between parties to contend that agreement unequivocally depicts intention of parties to enter into leave and license agreement and once terms of agreement are unambiguous and clear, there is no reason to look beyond agreement to gather intention of parties. He would submit that both Courts on appreciation of evidence on record concurrently recorded finding of facts that parties have entered into leave and license agreement.

Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, contentious issue arises for consideration of this Court is whether Courts below are justified in holding that agreement dated 30.07.2016 was leave and license or from attending circumstances brought on record, intention of parties can be gathered to hold that it was lease.

Undisputedly, agreement dated 30.07.2016 is registered in terms of provisions of Section 55 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, which mandates that any agreement for leave and licence or letting of any premises, entered into between landlord and tenant or licensee, as the case may be, shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. The landlord is put to statutory obligation to register such agreement and in absence of the written registered agreement, contention of tenant about terms and conditions, subject to which premises have been given to him by landlord on leave and licence shall prevail, unless proved otherwise. Perusal of document clearly reveals that it is titled as leave and license agreement in respect of suit property for period of sixty months. Clause No.2 of agreement records background, in which agreement has been entered into between parties. It records that defendant requested plaintiff to allot suit premises by leave and license agreement. Accordingly, agreement has been reduced into writing. Clause No.3 records various terms and conditions. The defendant was put to obligation to use property only for purpose of ready-made/garment shop. The term of agreement is fixed for five years. The license fee is specified. Plain reading of contents of document crystallized intention of parties to enter into leave and license agreement. The essence of agreement nowhere depicts intention of parties to enter into lease agreement as contended by defendant. Since document is registered in terms of Section 55 of Maharashtra Rent Act read with provisions of Registration Act, presumption would arise that parties had intention to enter into leave and license agreement and not otherwise.

In aforesaid scenario, particularly when intention of parties is crystallized in terms of agreement. However, both Courts have elaborately considered attending circumstances canvassed on behalf of defendant to show that suit property was leased to him. The plaintiff has clarified in plaint that he had obtained hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/-from defendant. Pertinently, defendant admitted that amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was refunded by plaintiff. The defendant seeks to take advantage of aforesaid transaction to contend that he had advanced aforesaid amount towards earnest money or advance of rent. Both Courts have concurrently held that defendant could not explain refund of Rs.2,50,000/- by plaintiff. Apart from that, there is no other evidence to accept contention of defendant that payment of Rs.4,00,000/- was in pursuance to agreement of lease or advance of rent.

It is submitted on behalf of defendant that period of agreement expired on 27.07.2021. However, defendant continued in possession of property or notice of termination of agreement was never served upon him. However, there is no substance in contention of defendant that aforesaid circumstance can be accepted to infer that he was in possession of property as lease holder. The extended occupation of property after expiry of license, period would not confer status of tenant in favour of defendant. The District Judge has rightly referred to contents of letter dated 17.11.2021 addressed by defendant placed at Exhibit-58, which shows that defendant was ready to vacate suit shop on payment of Rs.7,00,000/- by plaintiff.

It is further submitted on behalf of defendant that while making valuation of claim, reference is made to provisions of Section 6(xii) of Maharashtra Court Fees Act. Sub-clause (d) of Section 6(xii) pertains to recovery of immovable property from tenant, including a tenant holding over after determination of tenancy. Reference to such provision for valuation of suit would not lead to changing nature of leave and license agreement between parties. It is trite that, when agreement clearly stipulates intention of parties, other circumstances cannot be used to infer intention of parties, otherwise than agreed in specific terms of written agreement.

Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of defendant that plaintiff has pleaded about his bonafide requirement. The Trial Court considered the same, but did not record findings as to comparative hardship of tenant. The aforesaid contention is clearly fallacious. The provisions contained under Section 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act provides for ground for landlord for recovery of possession of leased premises from tenant. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 states that when eviction is sought on the ground of bonafide requirement by landlord, Court has to record satisfaction as regards to comparative hardship. In present case, it is not case of eviction of tenant, but licensee under leave and license agreement. Although plaintiff has pleaded about his bonafide requirement of premises, that itself cannot be construed that suit was instituted for possession under Section 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

In that view of matter, this Court holds that there is no perversity in concurrent findings recorded by Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Appeal. In result, Second Appeal sans merit, hence, dismissed in limine.

In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, pending Interim Application also stands disposed of.

After pronouncement of judgment in Second Appeal, Mr. Patil learned Advocate appearing for appellant submitted an undertaking duly signed and verified by appellant that he shall vacate suit premises within a period of three months from today and continue to pay license fee to respondent as per agreement till he vacates premises. He further undertakes that no third party interest or right shall be created in suit premises.

The undertaking is taken on record and marked as Exhibit ‘X’ for identification.

The appellant is personally present in Court and acknowledges signature on undertaking. He undertakes to abide by contents of undertaking. The undertaking is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

In view of undertaking, execution and implementation of decree of possession passed in favour of respondent/plaintiff in respect of suit premises shall be kept in abeyance till 23.02.2026.

Needless to mention here that no application or prayer for extension of time to vacate suit premises shall be entertained on behalf of appellant.