In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has clarified that in eviction proceedings under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, a licensee is barred from presenting any evidence that contradicts the terms of a written leave and license agreement, even if the agreement is unregistered. The ruling came from a single-judge bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar in the case of Ram Shankar Sinha v. Ritesh V. Patel & Anr. (Civil Writ Petition No. 3767 of 2025).
The dispute arose when the petitioner filed for eviction of the respondents from a residential premises on the basis of a written leave and license agreement dated June 16, 2018, which had expired on June 15, 2020. Despite the expiration of the agreement, the respondents continued to occupy the premises, leading the petitioner to initiate eviction proceedings on November 9, 2023.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Rules Interim Relief Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act Requires Timely Action
The petitioner argued that, under Explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the terms and conditions of the written leave and license agreement must be treated as conclusive. Hence, no other evidence contradicting the agreement could be admitted.
The presumption under clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 24 applies specifically to eviction applications related to premises given on license for residence, the Court emphasized. It further held that even if the written agreement is not registered, its terms will still be binding when an eviction application is made under Section 24 of the Act.
In response, the respondents claimed that their possession dated back to 2011 and that their last agreement, executed in 2018, had ended in 2020. They contended that once the agreement expired, the licensor-licensee relationship ceased, making the application for eviction unsustainable.
However, the Court dismissed this argument, observing that as long as the agreement was in writing and executed for residential use, the licensee cannot lead evidence contrary to the document’s terms.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Refuses Relief to Law Student Suspended Over Posts Related to ‘Operation Sindoor’
“The licensor can raise contentions permitted only under the special rule of evidence laid down in Explanation (b) to Sub-section 3 of Section 24, which treats a written license agreement as conclusive proof of the facts stated therein,” the Court clarified.
It further noted that exceptions can only be made in cases where the licensee alleges that the agreement was executed fraudulently. But even then, such a claim must first be prima facie evaluated by the Competent Authority to determine whether the defense is genuine or merely a tactic to delay proceedings.
In this case, both parties had agreed in writing that the licensee would vacate the premises after 24 months, ending on June 15, 2020. Therefore, the Court concluded that the respondents’ continued possession was unjustified and that the Competent Authority could not consider any evidence contradicting the written terms.
“The Competent Authority is bound to treat the written leave and license agreement as conclusive, and no contrary evidence can be entertained,” the Court held.
Referring to earlier judgments and the legislative scheme of Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947—which aligns with Section 24 of the current Rent Control Act—the bench reiterated that this special rule of evidence is crucial for ensuring certainty in contractual residential arrangements.
Ultimately, the High Court allowed the petition and directed eviction, reiterating the binding nature of written leave and license agreements under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ram Shankar Sinha v. Ritesh V. Patel & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 3767 of 2025
Petitioner’s Counsel: Alizain Patel
Respondents’ Counsel: Nilesh L. Makwana with Lajri H. Panchal .
