15 WP 1899 OF 2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1899 OF 2026 Meenu Navinchandra Manocha …Petitioner Versus Mercy Jose POA Holder Joem Jose and Ors. …. Respondents Ms. Gauri K. Jadhav a/w. Ms. Sneha M. Dhatrak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Kalyani Rathod, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATED: 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PC:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present Petition challenges the order dated 20th November, 2025, passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, in Revision Application No. 387 of 2025, confirming the order dated 21st February 2025 passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control, Konkan Division, Mumbai, in Eviction Application No. 162 of 2024 filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. By the said order, the Competent Authority Rajeshri Aher RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2026.09.30 12:13:51 +0530 15 WP 1899 OF 2026.DOC directed the Petitioner to pay damages at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per month, being twice the agreed license fee of Rs.45,000/- per month, for the period from 20th September 2023 to 10th October 2024. The Petitioner, who had occupied Flat No. 906, 9th Floor, M.M. Spectra, Shramjivi Nagar, Chembur(E) Mumbai, under a leave and license agreement, challenges the said orders and seeks the quashing and setting aside alternatively reduction of the damages payable, and a direction to Respondent No. 1 to refund Rs.1,58,000/- towards the alleged losses suffered by her. 3. The Petitioner initially occupied the suit premises under a leave and license agreement dated 17th October 2020 for 24 months, which expired on 19th October 2022. Thereafter, the parties executed another leave and license agreement dated 28th September 2022 for the period from 20th October 2022 to 19th September 2023, at a monthly license fee of Rs.45,000/-, with a refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Petitioner contends that the parties had verbally agreed to a longer period of occupation and that, during a meeting held on 14th January 2024 in the presence of the society office-bearers, Respondent No. 1's father agreed to refund the security deposit and reimburse certain Rajeshri Aher 15 WP 1899 OF 2026.DOC amounts allegedly incurred by her. However, the alleged settlement was not acted upon. Respondent No. 1 initiated Eviction Application No. 162 of 2024 under Section 24 of the Act. By order dated 21st February 2025, the Competent Authority directed the Petitioner to pay damages at twice the agreed license fee for the period from 20th September 2023 to 10th October 2024, on which latter date the Petitioner had vacated the suit premises. The Petitioner challenged the said order by filing Revision Application No. 387 of 2025, which was dismissed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner on 20th November 2025, thereby confirming the order of the Competent Authority. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders, the Petitioner has preferred the present Petition. 4. The learned counsel submits that he continued in the premises as there was a possibility of extension of the license and that talks on those issues were continuing with the Respondent. This fact, however, is disputed by the Respondent. The Respondent approached the Competent Authority for seeking possession of the suit premises and for seeking eviction, arrears of license fees, and damages. During the pendency of the proceedings, the licensed premises were vacated by the Petitioner on 10th October 2023. The Rajeshri Aher 15 WP 1899 OF 2026.DOC concerned Competent Authority has passed an order dated 21st February, 2025 directing the Petitioner to pay damages to the licensor at twice the rate of the license fee, equivalent to Rs.90,000/- per month, from 20th September 2023 to 10th October 2023. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the amount so directed is onerous and that such amount be reduced. However, Section 24, Sub-clause (2) statutorily mandates that the compensation shall be twice the amount of the license fee, as mentioned in the leave and license agreement. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 particularly provides that any licensee who does not deliver possession of the premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of license and continues to be in possession of the licensed premises until he is dispossessed by the Competent Authority shall be liable to pay damages at double the rate of the license fee or charge of the premises fixed under the agreement of license. 5. In the instant case, the license fee was fixed at Rs.45,000/- per month. Accordingly, the Competent Authority has directed payment of Rs.90,000/- per month after the license period till handing over possession. It is in line with the express provision of Section 24(2), of the Rent Control Act. Rajeshri Aher 15 WP 1899 OF 2026.DOC 6. In view of this, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) Rajeshri Aher