The case involves the eviction proceedings under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, based on Leave and License Agreements between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Petitioner challenged the eviction order, raising issues related to the validity of unregistered agreements, jurisdictional authority, and principles of natural justice. The court upheld the eviction, rejecting the Petitioner's claims and emphasizing the conclusive nature of written agreements under the Rent Act.

1. Nature of the Transaction and Validity of Agreements

• The case revolves around written Leave and License Agreements between the parties.
• Despite being unregistered, these agreements are treated as conclusive evidence under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
• The court found the eviction proceedings under Section 24 maintainable.

2. Jurisdictional Fact and Competent Authority

• Section 24 outlines requirements for the landlord to reclaim possession, including the existence and expiry of a valid license agreement.
• The Competent Authority's jurisdiction was confirmed based on the expiration of the agreements and the Petitioner’s failure to vacate.

3. Refund of Deposit Amount

• The Petitioner argued that the eviction order should not be enforced without the refund of the deposit.
• The court clarified that the primary issue under Section 24 is the expiry of the license, not the deposit refund.

4. Novation of Contract

• The Petitioner claimed the original agreements were converted into a rental agreement.
• The court found no written evidence supporting this claim and upheld the original agreements as conclusive evidence.

5. Principles of Natural Justice

• The Petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice, claiming they were not given a fair opportunity to present evidence.
• The court noted the Petitioner's repeated absence and upheld the Competent Authority's decision, finding no procedural irregularity.

6. Remand under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC

• The Petitioner sought to set aside the ex parte order, citing an application under Order IX Rule 13.
• The court found no evidence supporting this application, and the request for remand was not substantiated.

7. Final Conclusion

• The court upheld the eviction order, finding all procedural and jurisdictional requirements met.
• The Petitioner was instructed to pay compensation, with eviction delayed until 30th September 2024.
• Costs of Rs.10,000 were imposed on the Petitioner, and the Respondent's compensation application was withdrawn.