Facts: The Petitioner challenged an order by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, which directed the Petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the Respondent and pay double license fees and rent charges. The Petitioner claimed they were not served notice of the revision proceedings and had purchased the subject premises, thus becoming the owner. The Respondent argued the premises were given on a leave and license basis, evidenced by a registered agreement where the Respondent was explicitly stated as the owner.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner.
Issue: (1) Whether the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner is valid, considering the Petitioner's claim of not being served notice and the principles of natural justice. (2) Whether the Petitioner can lead evidence to contradict the registered Leave and License Agreement, which identifies the Respondent as the owner of the premises.
Holding: The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the Leave and License Agreement was conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, and no prejudice was caused to the Petitioner even if they were not served notice.
Reasoning: The Court relied on Explanation (b) to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which states that a written license agreement is conclusive evidence of the facts stated within. The Court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors., emphasizing that a breach of natural justice does not automatically invalidate an order unless prejudice is demonstrated. The Court found that the Petitioner's claim of ownership contradicted the express terms of the registered Leave and License Agreement, and therefore, no prejudice was caused by the alleged lack of service. The court stated, "Thus, there is no prejudice which is caused to the Petitioner even assuming that the Petitioner has not been served and there is violation of the principles of natural justice."