SOHAN LAL NARAINDAS Vs. LAXMIDAS RAGHUNATH GADIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sohan Lal Naraindas-hereinafter referrid to as 'the plaintiff'-commenced an action in the City Civil court, Bombay, for a decree in ejectment against Laxmidas Raghunath-hereinafter called "the defendant'-alleging that the defendant was occupying a loft 19' x 15' on the upper floor of a building at Pragraj Galli, Mulji Jetha Market, Bombay,under an agreement of licence, dated 3/11/1958 and that the licence had been duly terminated and withdrawn, but the defendant had failed and neglected to vacate the loft notwithstanding the demand. The defendant contended that lie was a tenant of the loft, that the tenancy had not been duly terminated as required by law, that he was entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Contract Act, 1947 and that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) The Trial court dismissed the suit holding that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and not his licensee. The decree was confirmed in appeal by the High court of Bombay. The High court held that on the terms of the agreement and in the light of the surrounding circumstances the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant. With certificate granted by the High court the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

(3.) The certificate granted by the High court is defective. The plaintiff applied for certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution and in the alternative under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The High court passed an order certifying the case under Article 133 (1) (c). A certificate granted by the High court must be supported by adequate reasons. It is obligatory upon the High court to set out the question of public or private importance which in their opinion fall to be determined in the proposed appeal. Since we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal, we have not thought it fit to vacate the certificate.