Order : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondent waives notice. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 11th March 2011 passed by learned District Judge-10, Pune dismissing the Petitioner's revision, being Revision Application No.26 of 2010. Consequently, trial court's order rejecting the Petitioner's application at Exhibit-54 in Civil Suit No.433 of 2006 stood confirmed. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows : The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the Respondent is the original Defendant. The Petitioner filed Civil Suit No.433 of 2006 for possession and arrears of rent with averments that the licence was executed by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondents for the period of 33 months for licence fees (compensation) of Rs.2 lacs per month subject to increase by 10% after the end of 24 months. It is specific case of the Petitioner that the leave and licence agreement expired on 31st March 2005 and after the expiry of the same, the Respondent persuaded the Petitioner to renew the leave and licence agreement for further period of 11 months. The Petitioner was ready and willing to renew the said agreement provided the Respondent pays an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- per month towards monthly licence fee, which is the market rate of licence fee. There was correspondence between the parties in that regard but agreement of leave and licence agreement was not renewed. The Respondent despite expiry of leave and licence agreement failed to vacate the suit premises and therefore suit came to be filed for aforesaid reliefs. 4. The Respondent by filing written statement has contested the suit. It is the case of the Respondent that the execution of leave and licence agreement was a stop gap arrangement and the Petitioner has agreed to sell the entire premises to the Respondent and accordingly minutes of meeting dated 8th May 2002 were recorded between the parties. It is the case of the Respondent that in accordance with the agreement in the meeting dated 8th May 2002, leave and licence agreement was executed. 5. It is the case of the Respondent that in accordance with the agreement in the meeting dated 8th May 2002, leave and licence agreement was executed. 5. The Petitioner in above suit moved an application at Exhibit-54 seeking directions to the Respondent for payment of arrears of the licence fee and compensation during the pendency of suit. This application was opposed by the Respondent by re-iterating the stand taken in the written statement. The learned trial Court rejected this application by its order dated 1st February 2010. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing revision before the District Court at Pune, which also came to be dismissed by the order impugned in this petition. 6. Mr. Kamdar, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner took me through the leave and licence agreement dated 6th July 2002 as well as alleged agreement to sell. He also invited my attention and took me through the provisions of Order-XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and submitted that leave and licence period has already expired. He also submitted that the Respondents were put in possession of the suit premises in pursuance of the leave and licence agreement. He disputed the alleged agreement of sale. He submitted that it was the duty of the Respondent to remove themselves from the suit property and hand over possession of the same to the Petitioner. The Respondents, however, failed and therefore they have become unauthorised occupants and liable to be evicted. In these facts and circumstances he submitted that Courts below ought to have exercised powers under Order-XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by directing the Respondents to deposit the arrears of licence fee upto date. 7. Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for the Respondents, on the contrary, supported the impugned order. He submitted that the leave and licence agreement relied upon by the Petitioner was in fact a stop gap arrangement as the Respondents were put in possession of the suit premises in pursuance of the agreement to sell. He lastly submitted that in the present case, the Courts below rightly refused to exercise its discretion under Order-XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. He lastly submitted that in the present case, the Courts below rightly refused to exercise its discretion under Order-XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having considered rival submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the compilation of writ petition including the impugned order and leave and licence agreement as well as alleged agreement to sell, I find merit in the petition. 9. There is no dispute that leave and licence agreement was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 6th July 2002 in respect of land admeasuring 29230 sq. ft and constructed premises admeasuring 22535 sq. ft. on plot bearng S.No. 33-A, Hissa no.1, City Survey No. 127 to 1213 and 1341 situate at villae Dapodi, taluka Haveli, district Pune for the period 1/7/2002 to 31/3/2005, i.e., 33 months. 10. Photocopy of leave and licence agreement is annexed at Exhibit-A page 29 to the petition. Clauses 2, 3(a), 3(b), 15, 16 thereof are relevant, which read thus : 2. PERIOD the licence period shall commence from 1st July 2002 and shall be for a period of 33 months (i.e., ending on 31st March 2005). The same may be renewed for such further period and on such terms as may mutually be agreed by and between the parties. 3. COMPENSATION 3(a) It has been agreed by and between the parties hereto that the licensee shall pay to Licensor and Licensor shall receive from the Licensee a monthly compensation in the following manner : (i) Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). The said compensation shall be payable in advance on or before the 7th day of each month subject to applicable Tax Deducted at Source under Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) The aforesaid compensation shall stand increased by 10% after the end of 24 months. (b) In addition to the above, the Licensee shall also pay to Licensor the following charges, namely : (i) actual amount billed for electricity consumed, and (ii) actual amount billed for water; (iii) The present proportionate property taxes, cess and other charges for the open and covered area comprised in the facilities under this Agreement is about Rs.25,766/- p.a. which has been verified and accepted by the Licensee. The Licensee shall bear and pay all increases in the said proportionate property taxes, i.e., any revision, enhancement or increase which arises on account of these presents shall be to the account of the licensee, whereas, any normal increase in the rates of the taxes shall to be account of the licensor. (iv) Any new or increase in any taxes (excluding property taxes), rates, cess, levy, duty, surcharge of any nature whatsoever upon or in respect of the said licensed premises; The above additional charges mentioned in sub-clause (b)(i) to b(iv) above shall be paid within 10(ten) days (240 hours) of the receipt by the licensee of the relative bill/bills and or statement(s) of Accounts prepared and certified by Licensor's Accountant (which shall be conclusive and binding upon the Licensee). It has been further agreed between the parties hereto that in the event any bonafide errors are found in the Original bills so received and the same is brought to the notice of the Licensor by the Licensee, then in that event the Licensor agrees to get the same rectified from the concerned Government Department. In the meanwhile, the Licensee shall deposit the bill abouts with the Licensor and on the issue being resolved with the concerned Department, the Licensor agrees and undertakes to refund the amounts, if any, so received from the concerned Government Department/s on account of the errors in the bills. 15. Upon the determination of this Agreement by efflux of time or sooner determination in accordance with the terms hereof : (a) The Licensee shall forthwith voluntarily discontinue the use of the said licensed premises; (b) The Licensee shall forthwith remove all its articles, belongings, things lying in the said licensed premises; (c) the Licensee shall hand over the vacant possession of the licensed premises to the Lessor ; (d) On the determination of these presents either by termination or efflux of time, the Licensee agrees to pay the depreciated value of the structures to the Licensor in case the Licensee cannot restore the licensed premises to its original condition as it is at the beginning of the leave and license agreement. (e) The Licensor, without prejudice to its other rights hereunder or at law, shall be entitled to stop the entry of licensee and its servants, agents or visitors at the Main Entry Point A as shown on the plan hereto annexed (except for removing belongings of the Licensee) or from any other entry point and to disconnect and discontinue the supply of services like water, electricity, telephone and other related services to the whole or any part or portion of the said licensed premises. 16. Upon termination of this Agreement by efflux of time or earlier in accordance with the terms hereof, if the Licensee, does not forthwith discontinue the use of the said licensed premises or does not remove all its articles, belongings, things lying in the said licensed premises or does not hand over the vacant possession of the licensed premises to the Licensor, then without prejudice to the other rights of Licesnor hereunder or at law, the deposit, the Deposit of the Licensee with Licensor shall stand forfeited and the Licensee shall be liable to pay the license compensation for such continuance of user of the licensed premises or not handing over the possession of the said licensed premises at double the rate prescribed hereunder in clause 3(a) for the period during which such default continues. 11. Perusal of above clauses makes it clear that leave and licence agreement expired on 31st March 2005. However, both the parties negotiated for renewal of licence. The Petitioner has annexed the correspondence exchanged between the parties for renewal of licence. The perusal of said correspondence reveals that the Petitioner was willing to renew the licence subject to the Respondents paying increased licence fee at the rate of Rs.4,50,000/- per month with additional security which the Respondent wanted to negotiate. During negotiation, the Petitioner without prejudice accepted 13 post dated cheques for Rs.2,20,000/- each, payable every month aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- for the period between 1/4/2005 to 31/5/2006. Since the parties could not finalise renewal terms, the Petitioner by its letter dated 3rd May 2006 called upon the Respondents to vacate the suit premises and also called upon to pay Rs.4,50,000/- per month for the use of the premises since 1/4/2005 till date of vacating the suit premises. Since the parties could not finalise renewal terms, the Petitioner by its letter dated 3rd May 2006 called upon the Respondents to vacate the suit premises and also called upon to pay Rs.4,50,000/- per month for the use of the premises since 1/4/2005 till date of vacating the suit premises. The Respondents by their advocate's letter dated 4th July 2006 refused to vacate the suit premises and therefore Petitioner filed suit before the Small Causes Court at Pune for respondent's eviction and arrears of licence fees. In this suit, as stated above, the Petitioner filed an application under Order-XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for direction to the Respondents to pay monthly compensation pending decision in suit. The Respondents contested suit as well as application at Exhibit-54 on the sole ground that the Petitioner in fact agreed to sell the suit premises to the Respondent and leave and licence agreement was only by way of stop gap arrangement. The Respondents also filed a suit for specific performance of alleged agreement to sell. In this suit the Respondents have made following averment in paragraph 8 : 8. The Plaintiff further states that on execution of the said Leave and License agreement by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff, the Defendants put the Plaintiff in possession of the suit property as a licensee in respect of the area mentioned in the said Leave and License agreement. The Plaintiff further states that till today the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property except the portion of the land given by the Defendant on leave and license to the said M/s. Auto mart India Limited under the agreement dated March 1, 2001. The above averments made by the Respondents themselves in their suit make it abundantly clear that they were put in possession of the suit premises as a licensee. 12. The Petitioner's case is that the Respondents were put in possession of the suit premises as a licensee thereof is also supported by the alleged agreement to sell relied upon by the Respondents themselves. Clause 9 and 11 of the said alleged agreement to sell will be relevant to note, which read thus : 9. 12. The Petitioner's case is that the Respondents were put in possession of the suit premises as a licensee thereof is also supported by the alleged agreement to sell relied upon by the Respondents themselves. Clause 9 and 11 of the said alleged agreement to sell will be relevant to note, which read thus : 9. The sale shall be completed against the Vendors (a) handing over the actual possession of the said property more particularly described in the second and the third schedule hereunder written to the Purchaser, (b) handing over the constructive and legal possession of the said property more particularly described in the Fourth Schedule hereunder written to the Purchaser; and (c) the Vendors and all other necessary parties executing or joining in execution of a sale deed in favour of the Purchaser in respect of the said property. 11. Save as otherwise agreed in the Leave and Licence Agreement dated 2002 between the First Vendor and the Purchaser, as between the Vendors and the Purchaser it is agreed that the Vendors shall be liable to bear and pay all the outgoings including the revenue and taxes in respect of the said property hereby agreed to be sold till completion of sale. Perusal of these clauses unequivocally shows that the Respondents were not put in possession of the suit premises in pursuance of the agreement to sell and sale was to be completed by handing over actual possession of the suit premises. It further shows that the Petitioners, who are Vendors, are liable to bear and pay all the outgoings including the revenue and taxes in respect of the suit premsies till completion of sale. After perusal of the relevant terms of leave and licence agreement and alleged agreement to sell, I am satisfied that the Respondents are not put in possession of the suit premises in part performance of the alleged agreement to sell but in fact they were put in possession of the suit premises as a licensee of the suit premises. 13. As stated above, the period of licence expired on 31st March 2005 and thereafter the Petitioner has, without prejudice, accepted 13 Post dated cheques of Rs.2,20,000/- each towards the license fee for the period 1/4/2005 to 31/5/2006. The Respondents have not paid anything towards the licence fee for the period subsequent to June 2006. 13. As stated above, the period of licence expired on 31st March 2005 and thereafter the Petitioner has, without prejudice, accepted 13 Post dated cheques of Rs.2,20,000/- each towards the license fee for the period 1/4/2005 to 31/5/2006. The Respondents have not paid anything towards the licence fee for the period subsequent to June 2006. The Respondents in these circumstances have become unauthorised occupants in the suit premises and it is obligation of the Respondents to remove themselves from the suit premises and hand over possession of the same to the Petitioner. However, the Respondents have chosen to contest the Petitioner's suit and also filed a suit for specific performance of alleged agreement to sell. In these circumstances, the Petitioner is justified in insisting that the Respondents should make deposit on account of licence fee upto date. 14. The Courts below rejected the Petitioner's application at Exhibit-54 on the sole ground that record does not show that amount claimed by the Petitioner is agreed between the parties and reasonable case has been made out by the Respondents regarding the dispute as to the leave and licence agreement. This ground for rejection of the Petitioner's application, in my view, is not sustainable. It is clear from the leave and licence agreement that the Respondents agreed to pay Rs.2,20,000/- towards the licence fee subject to increase @10% at the end of 24 months. From the record it is also clear that the Respondents were not put in possession of the suit premises as part performance of alleged agreement to sell and they were put in possession as a licensee which fact is admitted by the Respondents themselves in paragraph 8 of their suit for specific performance. The Courts below, in my view, are not justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the provisions of Order-XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 15. Under clause 16 of the leave and licence agreement on failure to hand over possession after the expiry of licence period, the Respondents are liable to pay licence compensation at double the prescribed rate. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to direct the Respondents to deposit arrears of licence fee / compensation at the rate of Rs.2,20,000/- per month, which is the agreed rate of licence fee as per the expired licence agreement between the parties. 16. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to direct the Respondents to deposit arrears of licence fee / compensation at the rate of Rs.2,20,000/- per month, which is the agreed rate of licence fee as per the expired licence agreement between the parties. 16. In the light of above discussion, petition is disposed of by passing following order. -: ORDER :- (I) The impugned order is quashed and set aside and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (II) The Respondents are directed to deposit in trial Court an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- per month towards the monthly licence fee / compensation for the use and occupation of the suit premises till the disposal of suit. (III) The arrears of licence fee for the period between June 2006 and December 2012 shall be deposited within the period of 10 weeks from today. (IV) Effective from the month of January 2013, the Respondents shall deposit the monthly licence fee on or before 25th of each month. (V) The amount so deposited by the Respondents, shall be invested by the learned trial Court in FDRs of nationalised bank on yearly basis. 17. Needless to mention that observations made hereinabove are made for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and Court below shall not be influenced by it in any manner. At this stage, Mr. Kanetkar learned counsel for respondents seeks stay to this order in order to enable the Respondents to approach the higher Court. Request is opposed by Mr. Ajay Panicker, learned counsel for petitioner. In the interests of justice, this order is stayed for a period of four weeks from today.