Bombay High Court imposed Rs.50,000 costs on a litigant for submitting AI-generated, unverified case laws. The Court warned, “Dumping irrelevant or non-existent material is not assistance to the Court; it is a hurdle to swift justice.”
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court set aside an order from the Revisional Authority and reinstated the eviction order against a licensee, concluding that unauthorized commercial use of a flat does not supersede the explicit terms of a registered leave and license agreement that specifies residential use.
The Court also imposed costs on the Respondent for submitting unverified, AI-generated legal documents that referenced non-existent case law.
The Single Bench, presided over by Justice M.M. Sathaye, ruled in favor of Writ Petition No. 8390 of 2009 filed by the landlord, Deepak Shivkumar Bahry.
The Court determined that the Revisional Authority, operating under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act), overstepped its jurisdiction by considering external disputes regarding a film production contract to deny eviction.
The Court highlighted that, in a summary proceeding under Section 24 of the MRC Act, the purpose of the license is defined by the leave and license agreement, not by how the licensee chooses to utilize the premises.
ALSO READ: Will AI Replace Lawyers? The Future of AI in Law and Legal Practice
Background of the Case
The Petitioner, owner of Flat No. 105 in the Matruchhaya Building located in Oshiwara, Mumbai, had engaged the Respondent, Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd., as a licensee through a registered leave and license agreement dated January 5, 2007. The license was valid for 22 months.
Earlier,On May 4, 2008, the Petitioner terminated the agreement, citing breaches of its terms. The Respondent contested this, asserting that the Petitioner had consented to transfer the flat to them and that they had a lien on the property due to financial losses incurred in a separate film production contract.
The Competent Authority permitted the Petitioner’s eviction application on April 15, 2009. In response, the Respondent sought revision from the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division (Revisional Authority), which set-aside the eviction order on September 2, 2009, accepting the Respondent’s claim that the premises were being used commercially and that a lien existed over the flat.
Disturbed by this ruling, the Petitioner appealed to the High Court.
Arguments of Parties:
Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Janay Jain, contended that the Revisional Authority’s order was flawed, as it selectively interpreted clauses of the agreement while disregarding Clauses 2, 11, 13, and 14, which clearly specified that the license was for residential purposes.
He pointed out that Clause 13 contains a strict covenant stating that the flat “shall be used for residential purpose only.”
Mr. Jain further asserted that the Revisional Authority lacked jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRC Act to evaluate a “lien” or “charge” arising from a separate film production contract. He emphasized that an Arbitration Award relied upon by the Respondent had already been annulled by the High Court.
Mr. Mohammed Yasin, the Director of the Respondent company, appeared in person and claimed that the petition was not maintainable. He argued that the flat was being utilized as a commercial office, supported by evidence of a three-phase electricity connection and images of office furniture. He maintained that based on the film production contract dated February 20, 2006, the Respondent had a right to recover losses from the Petitioner’s estate, thus establishing a lien over the flat. He also filed an Interim Application seeking perjury proceedings against the Petitioner, alleging discrepancies related to an undated possession letter.
Analysis of the Court
The High Court reviewed the contested order and deemed it legally untenable for several reasons.
- Interpretation of “Purpose of License”:
The Court noted that the Revisional Authority failed to analyze the leave and license agreement in its entirety. While some clauses referred to “residence-cum-office,” the Court stressed that Clauses 2, 11, and 13 were definitive and restrictive.
It said,
“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, an overall reading of the agreement indicates the purpose of the license as residential use of the suit flat.”
The Court concluded that the Respondent’s commercial usage of the flat would not alter the nature of the grant, stating:
“Evidence such as photographs and electricity bills showing commercial use will not establish the authority and purpose under which the suit flat was given on license.”
- Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority:
Justice Sathaye declared that the inclusion of the film production contract and alleged liabilities from it was “clearly beyond the scope of Revisional jurisdiction” under Section 44 of the MRC Act. The Court confirmed that proceedings under Section 24 are inherently summary, and disputes regarding title or external debts cannot be adjudicated in such contexts.
Also Read: “AI For All”: Centre Introducing Legislation To Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Misuse of AI Tools in Legal Submissions:
The judgment heavily criticized the Respondent’s practices in submitting written materials. The Court observed that these documents featured “give-away features” like green-box tick marks and repetitive points, indicating the use of AI technologies such as ChatGPT.
The Respondent cited a non-existent case law, “Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani Vs. Elegant Associates,” which neither the Court nor its clerks could verify.
The Court noted,
“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 ensure that the material generated by the machine is indeed relevant, genuine, and existent.”
The Court disapproved of the practice of “dumping” unverified material on the Court, stating,
“This practice of dumping documents/submissions on the Court and making the Court go through irrelevant or non-existent material must be deprecated and nipped in the bud. This is not assistance to the Court; this is a hurdle in swift delivery of justice.”
Final Decision Of the Court
The High Court annulled the Revisional Authority’s order from September 2, 2009, and upheld the eviction order issued by the Competent Authority on April 15, 2009. The Court rejected the Respondent’s Interim Application for perjury as unfounded and an attempt to exert pressure on the Petitioner. Consequently, the Respondent was ordered to vacate the suit flat immediately.
In light of the Respondent’s actions, including the submission of unverified AI-generated content that wasted judicial time, the Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000, to be paid to the High Court Employees Medical Fund.
Case Title: Deepak s/o Shivkumar Bahry vs Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd. Writ Petition No. 8390 of 2009
Read Attachment:
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
