Mumbai: A deputy commissioner of police, appointed as a competent authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, has said that non-refund of a security deposit did not give licensees a lien or the right to retain possession after the expiry of a leave-and-licence agreement. They could seek recovery of the deposit through separate civil proceedings before a competent court, said DCP Mohit Garg.The state housing department had on July 31 appointed all 15 zonal deputy commissioners of police as competent authorities under the Act. The notification empowers deputy commissioners to hear applications, conduct inquiries, record evidence, issue eviction orders and direct police stations under their command to enforce the orders.The matter pertains to vacating a flat in Insignia in Vile Parle West. Deepali Bhavik Jasani and Kiran Nikhil Jasani had sought possession of the flat on Old Police Station Road. The parties had executed a registered leave-and-licence agreement on June 14, 2023, for three years, from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2026. The monthly licence fee was Rs 1.38 lakh, with an interest-free security deposit of Rs 3.75 lakh. The authority directed the tenants to hand over possession to Jasanis after their agreement expired on June 30.The tenants admitted the agreement had expired but said they were willing to vacate if their security deposit was refunded simultaneously. They said they had served a legal notice seeking the refund and damages. Rejecting their contention, the authority said non-refund of a security deposit did not give licensees a lien or right to retain possession after an agreement expired.It awarded unpaid licence fees of Rs 4.14 lakh for July to Sept 2026 and damages at twice the agreed monthly fee, to be calculated proportionately for any part of a month. Jasanis had claimed dues at Rs 1.38 lakh a month and contractual liquidated damages of Rs 10,000 a day.The order directed Jasanis to adjust the security deposit against the arrears and damages awarded. It kept the tenants’ claim for a refund and accounting of the deposit open for appropriate proceedings or settlement. The authority dismissed the tenants’ application for leave to defend and their Rs 10 lakh counterclaim alleging harassment and denial of access to the society’s gym.The authority said a registered agreement was conclusive proof of its terms and expiry under the Act. It held that disputes over society resolutions and compensation claims were outside its jurisdiction. It also rejected the tenants’ request for more time to file a detailed written statement, citing the requirement for summary and expeditious disposal of eviction petitions.The order was the second issued by a western suburban competent authority in the past two days. The first eviction order was passed on Nov 11 in a case filed by a couple over their Santacruz flat.
Discover more from updatview
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
