The Bombay High Court has set aside an order passed by the Revisional Authority and restored the eviction order against a licensee, ruling that the unauthorized commercial use of a flat does not override the express terms of a registered leave and license agreement that stipulates residential use. The Court further imposed costs on the Respondent for “dumping” unverified, AI-generated legal submissions on the Court, which cited non-existent case law.
The Single Bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye allowed Writ Petition No. 8390 of 2009 filed by the landlord, Deepak Shivkumar Bahry. The Court held that the Revisional Authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act), had exceeded its jurisdiction by considering external disputes regarding a film production contract to deny eviction. The Court emphasized that in a summary proceeding under Section 24 of the MRC Act, the “purpose of the license” is determined by the leave and license agreement, not by how the licensee unilaterally chooses to use the premises.
Background of the Dispute
The Petitioner, owner of Flat No. 105 in Matruchhaya Building, Oshiwara, Mumbai, inducted the Respondent, Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd., as a licensee under a registered leave and license agreement dated January 5, 2007. The license was granted for a period of 22 months.
On May 4, 2008, the Petitioner terminated the agreement alleging breach of terms and conditions. The Respondent refused to vacate, claiming that the Petitioner had agreed to transfer the flat to them and that they held a lien over the property due to financial losses incurred in a separate film production agreement.
The Competent Authority (Rent Act) allowed the Petitioner’s application for eviction under Section 24 of the MRC Act on April 15, 2009. However, the Respondent challenged this before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division (Revisional Authority). By an order dated September 2, 2009, the Revisional Authority allowed the revision and set aside the eviction order, accepting the Respondent’s plea that the premises were used for commercial purposes and that a lien existed over the flat. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Janay Jain, argued that the Revisional Authority’s order was perverse as it relied on selective clauses of the agreement while ignoring Clauses 2, 11, 13, and 14, which clearly indicated the license was for “residential purposes.” He submitted that Clause 13 expressly contained a restrictive covenant stating the flat “shall be used for residential purpose only.”
The Petitioner further contended that the Revisional Authority had no jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRC Act to adjudicate on a “lien” or “charge” arising from a separate film production contract. It was also highlighted that the Arbitration Award, which the Respondent relied upon to claim recovery of dues, had already been set aside by the High Court in 2011.
Respondent’s Submissions: Mr. Mohammed Yasin, Director of the Respondent company appearing in person, argued that the petition was not maintainable. He claimed the flat was being used as a commercial office, evidenced by a 3-phase electricity connection and photographs of office furniture.
He contended that under the film production contract dated February 20, 2006, the Respondent had a right to recover losses from the Petitioner’s estate, creating a lien over the suit flat. He further filed an Interim Application seeking perjury proceedings against the Petitioner, alleging discrepancies regarding an undated possession letter.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court scrutinized the impugned order and found it to be legally unsustainable on several grounds.
1. Interpretation of “Purpose of License”: The Court observed that the Revisional Authority failed to read the leave and license agreement as a whole. While Clauses 1 and 9 referred to “residence-cum-office,” the Court pointed out that Clauses 2, 11, and 13 were specific and restrictive.
“Clause 13 clearly stipulates that the suit flat ‘shall be used for residential purpose only’ which amounts to acceptance of restrictive use by the Respondent… Therefore overall reading of the agreement indicates purpose of licence as residential use of the suit-flat.”
The Court held that merely because the Respondent used the flat for commercial purposes (as shown by electricity bills or photos), it would not change the nature of the grant.
“Evidence of such as photographs and electricity bill showing commercial use will not establish the authority and purpose under which the suit flat was given on licence.”
2. Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority: Justice Sathaye held that the consideration of the film production contract and alleged liabilities arising from it was “clearly beyond the scope of Revisional jurisdiction” under Section 44 of the MRC Act. The Court affirmed that proceedings under Section 24 are summary in nature, and issues of title or external debts cannot be adjudicated therein.
3. Misuse of AI Tools in Legal Submissions: A significant portion of the judgment addressed the Respondent’s conduct in filing written submissions. The Court noted that the submissions contained “give-away features” such as green-box tick-marks and repetitive points, suggesting the use of AI tools like ChatGPT. The Respondent had cited a non-existent case law, “Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani Vs. Elegant Associates,” which neither the Court nor its law clerks could locate.
“If an AI tool is used in aid of research, it is welcome; however, there is great responsibility upon the party, even an advocate using such tools, to cross verify the references and make sure that the material generated by the machine/computer is really relevant, genuine and in existence.”
The Court deprecated the practice of “dumping” unverified material on the Court.
“This practice of dumping documents / submissions on the Court and making the Court go through irrelevant or non-existing material must be deprecated and nipped at bud. This is not assistance to the Court. This is a hurdle in swift delivery of justice.”
Decision
The High Court set aside the order of the Revisional Authority dated September 2, 2009, and confirmed the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority on April 15, 2009.
The Court dismissed the Respondent’s Interim Application for perjury as baseless and an attempt to pressurize the Petitioner. Consequently, the Respondent was directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit flat to the Petitioner forthwith.
Costs Imposed: Due to the Respondent’s conduct, including the submission of unverified AI-generated content which wasted judicial time, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000, to be paid to the High Court Employees Medical Fund.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Deepak s/o Shivkumar Bahry vs Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd.
- Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8390 of 2009
- Coram: Justice M.M. Sathaye
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Janay Jain a/w Mr. Rishabh Jadhav i/b Parinam Law Associates
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Mohammed Yasin (Party in person)
