A Mumbai deputy commissioner of police has ruled that a licensee cannot continue occupying a flat after a registered leave-and-licence agreement expires merely because the security deposit has not been refunded, directing the occupants of a Vile Parle West apartment to hand over possession to the owners.
DCP Mohit Garg, appointed as a competent authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, said a licensee could seek recovery of an unpaid deposit through separate civil proceedings but could not claim a lien or retain possession of the premises after the agreement ended.
The case concerns a flat in Insignia on Old Police Station Road, Vile Parle West. Deepali Bhavik Jasani and Kiran Nikhil Jasani had sought possession after entering into a registered leave-and-licence agreement with the occupants on June 14, 2023. The agreement covered a three-year period from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2026.
Under the agreement, the monthly licence fee was Rs 1.38 lakh and the occupants had paid an interest-free security deposit of Rs 3.75 lakh. The occupants admitted that the agreement had expired but said they were willing to vacate only if the deposit was refunded at the same time. They had also issued a legal notice seeking refund of the deposit and damages.
Rejecting that position, the authority directed the occupants to hand over possession to the owners. It also awarded unpaid licence fees of Rs 4.14 lakh for July to September 2026 and damages at twice the agreed monthly licence fee, calculated proportionately for any part of a month. The owners had sought monthly dues of Rs 1.38 lakh and contractual liquidated damages of Rs 10,000 a day.
The order directed the owners to adjust the security deposit against the arrears and damages awarded. The occupants’ claim for a refund and accounting of the remaining deposit was left open for appropriate proceedings or settlement. The authority therefore separated the question of possession from the financial dispute over the deposit.
The occupants’ application for leave to defend was dismissed, as was their Rs 10 lakh counterclaim alleging harassment and denial of access to the society’s gym. The authority said disputes concerning society resolutions and compensation claims fell outside its jurisdiction. It also rejected a request for additional time to file a detailed written statement, citing the requirement for summary and expeditious disposal of eviction petitions.
The order said a registered agreement was conclusive proof of its terms and expiry under the Act. The state housing department had appointed all 15 zonal deputy commissioners of police as competent authorities under the legislation on July 31. The notification empowers them to hear applications, conduct inquiries, record evidence, issue eviction orders and direct police stations under their command to enforce those orders.
The Vile Parle order was the second eviction order issued by a western suburban competent authority in two days. The first was passed on November 11 in a case filed by a couple seeking possession of their flat in Santacruz.
