Advocate S Selvakumar|Property advocates in Bangalore|Property lawyers in Bangalore
With the
passage of your time, the system of giving properties inactive and license
basis in Maharashtra is taking its roots, however still an honest range of the
property house owners are apprehensive as a result of their undecided that they
might revisit possession of the properties on the end of the term. However,visible
of the subsequent judicial say-so, such worry appears unwarranted, provided
legal necessities are complied with.
One Shri
Mohd. Hussain article of furniture Walla, (Licensor) because the owner of Flat
No. 51, in Victoria residences, St. Alexius Road, Bandra, Mumbai, gave his
premises inactive and license basis, as per the Agreement dated twenty 05.03.2003, for a amount of twenty-two months to at least one Ms. Parineeta
Choudhary on a monthly fee of Rs.18,000. Additionally, an extra agreement was
conjointly dead between the parties for payment of charges at Rs.10,000 per
month in respect of article of furniture and fixtures within the same premises.
The term of the license invalid in january 2005 and therefore the retailer
continuing to occupy the same premises even thenceforth and licensor accepted
the monthly fee and therefore the further charges. Solely on tenth Dec 2005, he
moved a petition before the Competent Authority, who, besides ordering eviction
of the retailer, conjointly directed her to pay the damages at Rs. 56,000/- per
month from sixteenth Gregorian calendar month 2005 until delivering possession
of the accredited premises to the owner.
This call
was challenged by manner of revision u/s forty four of the Maharashtra Rent
management Act by the retailer however constant was fired and therefore the
order of the Competent Authority was upheld.
Aggrieved by
this order the retailer filed a legal instrument Petition No.2276 of 2008
before the Hon' ble city high court below Article 227 of the
Constitution of Asian country. The matter came up for hearing before Hon'ble
adult male. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar on the ninth Sep 2008, when the licensee
pleaded that not issuing legal notice to her and continuing to simply accept
the monthly fee, was indicative of the actual fact that the retailer has become
the tenant in respect of the licenced premises. however this argument wasn't
accepted by the Hon'ble high court that ascertained that the actual
fact of acceptance of the monthly
compensation by itself wouldn't be comfortable to completely hold that the link
of the parties that of licensor and retailer was born-again into one amongst
landowner and tenant and therefore the proven fact that retailer instituted the
proceedings before the Competent Authority, virtually once eleven months from
end of the license amount, would once more not by itself indicate that he has
waived his statutory right of eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises
as a result of there is legal presumption u/s twenty four of the Act concerning
determinateness of the contents of the leave and license agreement. it'd simply
indicate that the licensor allowed the retailer to abide the license amount and
zilch a lot of and therefore the relationship would still stay of licensor and
retailer.
The Hon'ble
high court has, therefore, command that the arrangement between the parties was
strictly one amongst the leave and license and therefore the relationship
created between them on account of the same dealing was that of the licensor
and retailer and visible of the legal presumption u/s twenty four of the Act,
it would essentially follow that the retailer is obligated to vacate the
premises on the end of the license amount in January, 2005.
On the
question of payment of damages from sixteenth January 2005, the Hon'ble high
court failed to accept as true with the order of the Competent Authority, as
upheld within the revision.
The Hon'ble
high court ascertained that the licensor failed to decision upon the retailer
to vacate the suit premises nor enlightened her that she would be susceptible
to pay damages for continued possession and he filed the eviction proceedings
solely sixteenth Dec 2005.Therefore, the licensor would be entitled for the
damages from the retailer at double the speed of fee fastened within the Agreement of License solely from sixteenth Dec 2005, once he initiated the
proceedings.
As regards
the quantum of the damages, again the Hon'ble state supreme court failed to
accept as true with the order of the Competent Authority, as upheld in revision
and ascertained that the license agreement provided for the monthly retailer
fee @ Rs. 18,000/- solely and therefore the further agreement to pay charges @
Rs. 10,000/- in respect of furniture and fixtures provided threin can't be
reckoned for purposes of computing damages u/s 24(2) of the said Act.Therefore, the Hon'ble high court command that retailer would be susceptible to
pay license fees @ Rs. 18,000/- from 16-12-2005 until delivering the possession
to the suit premises.
In another
case concerning a flat at Carmichaell Road in Bhagawati Bhavan at Mumbai given
inactive and license by the owner Manju Singh to Janki Ammanraj, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Anoop Mohta command in january, 2009 that once the retailer, in spite
of end of the leave and license agreement in Gregorian calendar month 2006 and
supply of notice failed to deliver possession of the premises to the land-lord
and continuing to be in possession of the licenced premises, the retailer ought
to pay damages at double the speed of fee with all the arrears until the time
the flat is vacated.Thus, the
abide by a retailer within the licenced premises and acceptance of the monthly
retailer fee by the licensor wouldn't mean that the link of licensor and
retailer has been born-again into that of land lord and tenant and therefore
the retailer would be susceptible to pay the damages at double the speed of the
fee fastened within the agreement until it's vacated.
It has been
ascertained that during a sensible range of cases leave and license agreements don't seem to be adequately sealed and registered and 2 agreements are drawn one
towards the fee for the premises and another towards article of furniture,
fixtures and services etc. as a matter of temptation to avoid wasting expenses
and taxes. But it must be kept visible
that where a document is required to be necessarily registered (section
55 of the said Act) and if it's not registered, it can't be taken as associate
proof and such a state of affairs could produce the matter in the maximum
amount because the relationship could also be construed as of land-lord and therefore
the tenant and cacophonous of the
agreement might not entitle the licensor to recover the damages at double the
speed of the fees fastened in each agreements.
It would,
therefore, be best that the leave and license agreement ought to be adequately sealed
and registered as per the provisions of law and a notice ought to be served by
the licensor to the retailer beforehand before the end of the agreement to
vacate the premises and just in case of failure, besides eviction, the retailer
would be to blame for the damages at double the speed of monthly compensation
fastened within the agreement.
A land-lord
ought to even have the police verification of the retailer and procure noc from
the Society before giving the ultimate form to the current arrangement. If of
these legal requirements are taken care of, there needn't be any apprehension
in mind to relinquish the flats inactive and license basis, if not needed for
self-occupation.
More,
No comments:
Post a Comment