(1.) Against the decision of the Bombay High Court holding that the appellant herein had no right to remain in possession of the property in question this Court on 1st December, 1994 granted leave limited to the question whether the appellant was a tenant of the premises and whether, therefore, the recovery of possession of the premises from him could be decreed.
(2.) The case of the appellant which was put forth was that he had been a tenant of Jadavbai, the erstwhile owner of the property in question, and he had purchased the property from her. It appears that the High Court did not accept the validity of the sale as in its opinion there was a compromise which had been arrived at between Jadavbai and the respondents, as a result of which Jadavbai had only a life estate in this property and she could, therefore not have sold the house to the appellant.
(3.) Presumably basing his case on the plea that prior to the purchase he was a tenant in the house in question and, therefore, he could not be evicted except under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, this limited leave was granted.