In a petition filed before the Bombay High Court to challenge a judgment and order dated 02-09-2009 by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, whereby the revision application by the respondent was allowed and the judgment passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Act, under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) was set aside, a Single Judge Bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye set aside the impugned order while warning parties and advocates to cross-verify material generated by AI tools before submitting the same.
The petitioner, owner of the suit flat in Mumbai, was a film director and producer. The respondent, a licensee of the said flat, was an incorporated company engaged in the production of films. The petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the MRC Act, contending that the respondent had been inducted as a licensee for residential use in the suit flat for 22 months.
It was also submitted that the respondent breached the terms and conditions of the leave and license agreement, as a result of which, the petitioner terminated the agreement by notice dated 04-05-2008. Instead of complying with the same, the respondent filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, alleging that the petitioner had agreed to transfer the said flat in its favour. No ad-interim relief was granted.
The respondent appeared before the Competent Authority and admitted issuing the termination notice but stated that, due to the petitioner’s poor industry reputation, several cases were pending against him. It was also mentioned that after the execution of the first agreement, the petitioner approached the respondent with a request to direct a film. The respondent agreed to work with the petitioner, and thereafter, a leave and license agreement dated 05-01-2007 was executed for the use of the said flat for commercial purposes.
The respondent contended that the film could not be released due to the petitioner’s reputation and that under the film production contract, the respondent had charge over the said flat for the recovery of the amount. The Competent Authority allowed the eviction application and directed the respondent to hand over the flat to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which was allowed by the impugned order, setting aside the eviction order.
The Court stated that the leave-and-license agreement was a registered document and that, as per its 13th clause, it was clearly stipulated that the flat must be used only for residential purposes. It was noted that an overall reading of the agreement indicated the purpose of the license as residential use of the flat.
The Court found that the Revisional Authority had failed to read the foundational document as a whole and had considered only selective clauses, leading the Court to believe it had perversely appreciated the purpose of the license. Further, the Court stated that consideration of any other document, such as a film production contract, was clearly beyond the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 44 of the MRC Act.
Further, the Court stated that relying on photographs to conclude the purpose of the license was perverse since the use of the suit flat could not legalize the commercial user if the purpose of the license was residential. The Court held that, since clause 14 of the leave and license agreement clearly stipulated that the respondent had agreed to Section 24 of the MRC Act, the respondent could not be heard to contend that the application under Section 24 was not maintainable on the ground of an alleged mixed user.
The Court stated that nothing was brought on record to show that any action was initiated against the petitioner for violating Section 30 and that the respondent’s interpretation of Section 30 could not be accepted.
The Court perused the written submissions of the respondents and noted that there were green-box tick marks, bullet-point marks, repetitive submissions, etc., based on which the Court stated that the submissions were prepared using an AI tool such as Chat GPT. It was said that a case law was mentioned in the submissions, for which neither a citation was given nor was a copy of the judgment supplied. The Court stated that precious judicial time was wasted in finding this case law.
Welcoming the use of AI tools, the Court stated that the parties and advocates have a great responsibility to cross-check references to ensure that the material generated is genuine and in existence. The Court stated that the practice of dumping submissions on the Court to make the Court go through irrelevant or non-existent material must be deprecated. Considering this a hurdle to the swift delivery of justice, the Court said that such practices would entail costs.
Further, regarding an interim application, the Court said that the same was nothing but an attempt by the respondent to pressurize the petitioner, for which precious judicial time of the Court had been taken not once, but thrice.
The Court set aside the impugned order and confirmed the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority. The respondent was directed to hand over the possession of the flat to the petitioner and to deposit Rs. 50,000/- as costs to the High Court Employees Medical Fund within two weeks.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Janay Jain, Mr. Rishabh Jadhav, Parinam Law Associates
For Respondent(s) – Party-in-person
