LAWS(SC)-1984-2-16

M M AMONKAR Vs. S A JOHARI

Decided On February 21, 1984
M.M.AMONKAR Appellant
V/S
S.A.JOHARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave raise two questions for our determination:(1) Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Art. 227 was justified in interfering with a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the lower Courts in favour of the appellants and (2) Whether the respondent was a protected licensee in respect of the suit premises under the Bombay Rent Act (No. 57 of 1947) as amended by the Maharashtra Act XVII of 1973

(2.) This unfortunate litigation between eminent medical practitioners of Bombay has been hotly contested before us since it relates to professional accommodation of which there is great dearth in that city. The accommodation in question consists of a small cabin admeasuring 15'-6" x 11'-2" (approximately 175 sq. ft.) which is a part of the premises of Dr. Amonkar Hospital located on the fourth floor of Bombay Mutual Terrace at 534, Sandhurst Bridge, Bombay, of which one Dr. M. D. Amonkar. since deceased was the proprietor (whose heirs and legal representatives are the appellant-defendants before us, being his widow and two sons and three daughters, of whom one son and two daughters are medicos).

(3.) Dr. Johari (the respondent-plaintiff) an M.B.B.S. of Bombay, F.R.C.S. of London and Edinburough and Honorary Surgeon attached to G. T. Hospital and Bombay Hospital, filed a suit (R. A. Suit No. 779/2893 of 1973) in the Small Causes Court at Bombay seeking a declaration that he was a "protected licensee" (having become a deemed tenant) of the suit premises under S. 15A of the Bombay Rent Act (No. 57 of 1947) as amended by the Maharashtra Act XVII of 1973 and for injunction restraining the appellant-defendants from taking forcible possession of the suit premises and or disturbing or interfering with his use and enjoyment thereof otherwise than in due course of law. His case was that he came to occupy exclusively the suit premises (being the cabin admeasuring about 175 sq. ft. with the facility of using the adjacent common waiting room together with the facility of water and electricity) on 1st May, 1970 on leave and licence basis under an oral agreement with late Dr. Amonkar on payment of monthly compensation of Rupees 201 for doing his private consultation surgical practice. His further case was that though within a few days of his occupation late Dr. Amonkar had obtained from him a writing purporting to state that he was attached as an Honorary Surgeon to Dr. Amonkar Hospital and was, therefore, allowed to have his private consultation practice in the premises, that he had agreed to bear and pay ratably the expenses of telephone. use of furniture, etc. and that he was neither a tenant nor a licensee, the said writing had been obtained from him merely as a safeguard for Dr. Amonkar against a possible objection that might be raised by the Life Insurance Corporation, the landlords of the building, and was not to be acted upon. According to him, he had cordial relations with late Dr. Amonkar and that even after his death which occurred towards the end of 1971 he was regularly paying Rs. 201 per month to his heirs till January 1973 but since threats of forcible dispossession were held out to him by the appellant-defendants, particularly by appellant-defendant No. 3 Dr. Suman Gaitondey (the married daughter of the deceased) on her return to Bombay from Calcutta, and since by a notice dated 20th March, 1973 he was informed that his attachment as Honorary Surgeon was no longer required with effect from 1-4-1973 and that he should make his own arrangements for his private consultation, he was forced to file the suit seeking reliefs of a declaration and injunction mentioned above.