Diksha Rane 3 WP 10429 2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10429 OF 2026 YOGESH SHIVAJI AVHAD ..PETITIONER VS RAVINDRAKUMAR SITARAM GOTARKAR AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS Adv. Vipul Dada Patil i/b. Adv. Bhushan Raut for petitioner. Adv. Sanjay Koban for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for respondent no.3. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026. Per Court : 1. The present writ petition challenges the order dated 21st May, 2026 passed by the Appellate Authority (Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune), whereby it rejected the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner u/s. 43(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 (for short ‘MRCA, 1999’) and upheld the order dated 27th February 2026 passed by the Competent Authority. 19th AUGUST, 2026 2026:BHC-AS:34637 Diksha Rane 3 WP 10429 2026.docx 2. The petitioner was inducted in the licensed premises by respondent no.1 under a registered Leave and License Agreement dated 27th February 2021 for a period of 22 months, commencing from 10th February, 2011 and expiring on 9th December, 2022. During the subsistence of the license, the petitioner claims that respondent no.1 agreed to sell the premises to him for a consideration of Rs.1.75 crores, and accepted Rs.15 lakhs as earnest money pursuant to the alleged oral agreement for sale. The petitioner, accordingly, claims that after expiry of the Leave and License Agreement, he continued in possession in pursuance of the alleged agreement for sale and not merely as a licensee. He also issued legal notice calling upon the respondent no.1 to specifically perform the alleged agreement for sale. 3. After expiry of license, respondent no.1 initiated proceedings u/s. 24 of MRCA, 1999 before the Competent Authority, Pune, seeking eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner sought leave to defend u/s. 43 (4)(a) of MRCA, 1999, contending that the proceedings were not maintainable after expiry of the license, and that the petitioner had an agreement for sale of the property in his favour and had paid earnest money and has raised triable issues. The Competent Authority rejected the application for leave to defend by order dated 27th February, 2026 and the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and confirmed the said order by order dated 21st May, 2026. 19th AUGUST, 2026 Diksha Rane 3 WP 10429 2026.docx Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders. 4. No case is made out to interfere as there is no evidence prima facie in favour of the petitioner that he is occupying the premises on the basis of the agreement to sale. Agreement to sale is not produced on record. Leave and License Agreement admittedly expired on 9th December 2022, and thus the applicant had no right to continue in the premises after December, 2022. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] 19th AUGUST, 2026 Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/08/2026 19:43:29