JUDGMENT:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner claims to be owner and landlord of the suit premises admeasuring 2137 sq. ft., which is part of the property bearing City Survey No.1060 admeasuring 1687.1 sq. mtr. shown on sheet no.13, Tq. Ramtek, dist. Nagpur. The property originally belonged to one Shamji Naranji and in the year 1962, by order of the Charity Commissioner, the said property was included in Naranji Bhimji Family Trust and accordingly entry was also taken in the city survey record in the year 1969. According to the petitioner-Trust, one Nanalal Thakkar, husband of respondent no.2 and father of respondent no.3 was in the service of Shamji Naranji. Said Nanalal died in the year 1972. Respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. legal representatives of said Nanalal had no residential accommodation and, therefore, on their request and taking into consideration the past services of said Nanalal, the petitioner trust allowed them in the year 1980-81 to occupy the suit premises consisting of five rooms and two varandha etc. as licensee. Thus, occupation of the respondents is permissive. Respondent no.3 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.651l990 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division. Ramtek seeking declaration that he was owner of the property on the basis of oral gift. That suit came to be dismissed on 08.02.2005. According to the petitioner, they had repeatedly asked respondent nos.2 and 3 to vacate the premises but they avoided. Finally on 01.04.2005, notice was issued to them but in vain. With these pleadings Revenue Case No.1/A-71(2)/05-06 under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (For short the "Act") was filed by the petitioner. 3. Respondent nos.2 and 3 filed an application on 05.09.2005 seeking leave to appear and to contest that application as contemplated in Section 43(4) (9) of the Act. In that application also, the main defence was that Shamji Naranji Lohana had made oral gift of the suit property in favour of father of non applicant no.2 for selfless services rendered by him and thus he had become owner of the property. Non-applicants claimed to be owners of the property and according to them, in view of this, it was necessary to grant them leave to appear and to contest the matter. Non-applicants claimed to be owners of the property and according to them, in view of this, it was necessary to grant them leave to appear and to contest the matter. That application was opposed by the petitioner. It appears that both the parties filed their notes of arguments in respect of the leave sought by non applicants to appear and contest the application. However, while deciding the question of leave, the Sub-Divisional Officer. Ramtek, who was the competent Authority under the Act, dismissed the application of the petitioner itself holding that in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, it is necessary that there should be written agreement of service tenancy and as in the present case, there was no such written agreement and, therefore, the application itself is not tenable under section 42 of the Act. That order is challenged in the present petition. 4. Chapter VIII of the Act consisting of Sections 39 to 52, provides for summary disposal of certain applications for eviction. Section 41 declares that for the purpose of Chapter VIII, a landlord means (a) a person who has created a service tenancy in respect of his premises or a part thereof in favour of his employee under section 22; (b) a member of the armed forces of the Union or a scientist or a Government servant or a successor-in-interest, referred to in section 23; or (c) a person who has given premises on license for residence or a successor-in-interest referred to in section 24. Tfthe landlord claims to be a person falling in any of these three categories, he can make an application before the competent Authority to evict the tenant or licensee under section 42 of the Act. Section 43 of the Act provides for special procedure for disposal of application for eviction. Sub Section (4) of Section 43. which is relevant. reads as follows:- "43. Special procedure for disposal of applications (1) .…. (2) .…. (3)...... Section 43 of the Act provides for special procedure for disposal of application for eviction. Sub Section (4) of Section 43. which is relevant. reads as follows:- "43. Special procedure for disposal of applications (1) .…. (2) .…. (3)...... (4) (a) The tenant or licensee on whom the summons is duly served in the ordinary way or by registered post in the manner laid down in sub-section (3) shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises, unless within thirty days of the service of summons on him as aforesaid, he files an affidavit stating ground on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Competent Authority as hereinafter provided, and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the Statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant or the licensee, as the case may be. and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid. (b)The Competent Authority shall give to the tenant or licensee leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant or licensee discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in section 22 or 23 or 24." From these provisions, it becomes clear that when summons is served on a tenant or licensee, he shall not contest the prayer for eviction unless within 30 days of service of summons on him, he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the competent Authority. If he does not make such application, seeking leave within the prescribed period or if he makes such an application but that application is rejected and leave is refused. the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by tenant or licensee, as the case may be, and applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the grounds stated therein. the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by tenant or licensee, as the case may be, and applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the grounds stated therein. From clause (b) of sub-section (4), it is clear that if the affidavit filed by the tenant or licensee discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession on the grounds as specified in Section 22 or 23 or 24, the competent authority shall give to the tenant or licensee leave to contest the application. From this it is clear that if the affidavit filed by the tenant or licensee does not disclose such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of recovery of possession, the competent authority shall refuse leave to tenant or licensee. 5. Section 22 of the Act is applicable where a landlord has let out the premises to his employee as a service condition or where they have created a service tenancy. For that purpose, it is necessary that the landlord and the employee may enter into an agreement in writing. Section 23 is applicable where the landlord claims to be member of armed forces of the Union. scientists or a successor-in-interest. Section 24 is applicable where the landlord had given premises to a person for residence as a licensee. In the present case, the petitioner had nowhere claimed in the application for eviction that the suit premises was given to Nanalal Thakkar, husband of non-application no.1 and father of non applicant no.2, as a service tenement. Therefore, Section 22 would not be applicable. According to the petitioner, Nanalal had died in 1971 itsclf and non applicants were inducted as licensee in the year 1981-82 on their request, because they did not have any residential accommodation, taking into consideration the past services of Nanalal, It was nowhere pleaded by the petitioner that service tenancy was created either in favour of Nanalal or in favour of his legal representatives. In view of pleadings, the case would fall under section 24 of the Act and not under section 22 of the Act. Sub-Divisional Officer-Competent Authority misled himself by holding that because there were no written agreement to create service tenancy as required under section 22 of the Act, the application itself is not tenable. In view of pleadings, the case would fall under section 24 of the Act and not under section 22 of the Act. Sub-Divisional Officer-Competent Authority misled himself by holding that because there were no written agreement to create service tenancy as required under section 22 of the Act, the application itself is not tenable. As the petitioner claimed that the suit premises were given on license to the non applicants, the case would fall under section 24 and the application is tenable under section 42 of the Act. In view of this, it is clear that Sub-Divisional Officer/Competent Authority committed serious error in rejecting the application. 6. As noted earlier, the parties had submitted only notes of arguments on the application made by non-applicants seeking leave to contest the eviction application. That application should have been considered by the competent authority taking into consideration the plea taken by non applicant, As noted earlier, according to non-applicants/ respondents the suit premises were given in gift by original owner Shamji Naranji to Nanalal some times in the year 1952-53, orally. It is material to note that non applicant no.2 Narendra s/o. Nanalal had filed Regular Civil Suit No.65/1990 claiming declaration that he had become owner of the property mainly on the ground that the suit property was gifted orally to his father by Shamji NaranjL That suit was dismissed on the ground that the suit was filed without permission of the Charity Commissioner as well as non joinder of the necessary party. Learned counsel for respondents-non applicants makes statement that an appeal has been preferred against judgment and that appeal is still pending. In my considered opinion, it is immaterial that the suit has been dismissed for want of necessary permission from the Charity Commissioner. The material fact is that in that suit and even in the application made by the respondents before the competent Authority seeking leave to contest the eviction proceeding, their main contention is that the suit property was gifted by Shamji Naranji to Nanalal some times in the year 1952-53 and according to them, the gift was oral. The suit property is a house admeasuring approximately 2137 sq. ft and consisting of 5 rooms, varandhas and bathroom etc. 7. The suit property is a house admeasuring approximately 2137 sq. ft and consisting of 5 rooms, varandhas and bathroom etc. 7. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that for the purpose of making gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. A gift of movable property may be made either by registered instrument or by delivery. From this it is clear that the immovable property cannot be transferred unless a gift of the same was made by a registered instrument. The oral gift of immovable property is not permitted under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Similarly, section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes registration of an instrument of gift of any immovable property compulsory irrespective of value of the property. Other non-testamentary instruments, which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property, the value of which is Rs.l00/- or upwards are required to be registered compulsorily. It means that if value of the property is less than Rs.l00/-, in case of such documents, they are not compulsorily required to be registered. However, exception on the basis of value of the immovable property is not made in respect of instrument of gift of immovable property. Thus, it is clear that Section 123 of the Transfer Property Act as well as Section 17 of the Registration Act make registration of the instrument of gift deed of an immovable property, irrespective of the value, to be compulsory. In view of this, the ground taken by the respondents in defence of the application for eviction is not permitted to be raised and proved, in view of specific provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act and Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. If this defence is ruled out, the respondents do not have any other ground or defence which would disentitle the petitioner from getting an order of eviction and possession. In view of this, the competent authority should have rejected the application seeking leave to defend. 8. If this defence is ruled out, the respondents do not have any other ground or defence which would disentitle the petitioner from getting an order of eviction and possession. In view of this, the competent authority should have rejected the application seeking leave to defend. 8. In view of the facts and legal position noted above, it is clear that the competent authority misled itself by holding that the application is not tenable under section 42 of the Act because there was no written service tenancy agreement as required in Section 22 of the Act. The Competent Authority was wrong in rejecting the application on that ground. The non-applicants had not taken any ground, which would disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction. As pointed out, the ground taken by them that they had become owner of the property in view of oral gift, cannot be allowed to be raised and proved, in view of provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of Registration Act. 9. As in the present case, no gift deed was executed and registered and the plea of oral gift cannot be taken, therefore, in my considered opinion, the respondents had not raised any defence or ground, which would disentitle the petitioner from getting the order for eviction. Therefore, the very application seeking leave to defend is liable to be rejected. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by competent authority rejecting the application filed by landlord/petitioner is hereby Set aside. The application made by non-applicants seeking leave to appear and contest stands rejected. Competent Authority shall pass consequential order in view of provisions of Section 42 (4) (I) of the Act. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.