WAMAN SHRINIWAS KINI Vs. RATILAL BHAGWANDAS AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay confirming the order of ejectment passed by the Assistant Judge, Thana. The tenant who was the defendant in the suit is the appellant and the landlord who was the plaintiff is the respondent.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this litigation shortly stated are that the appellant was a tenant for about 20 years in the premises known as "Fida Ali Villa" in Kalyan. This building was purchased by the respondent who gave notice to the appellant to vacate, as he wanted to construct a new building on the site of the old building. The appellant agreed to vacate and the respondent let to him a portion of his new building which was not far from "Fida Ali Villa". The appellant had four sub-tenants, three of them also shifted to the new premises which were let to the appellant by the respondent. Although it was disputed, the courts below have found that they occupied the same position qua the appellant. The 4th, a Bohri, was fixed of by the respondent in some other place. There was some dispute as to the date when these new premises were let to the appellant, the appellant alleging that they were let on July 1, 1948 and the respondent that they were let on June 1, 1948. The trial Court found that they were let on June 1, 1948. The terms of the lease are contained in a document dated June 7, 1948 which is a letter in Marathi written by the respondent to the appellant and contains the following term as to sub-tenancy:

(3.) On April 20, 1949 the respondent brought a suit for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting of the premises. The defence of the appellant was that under the terms of the lease he had the right to sub-let the premises. As to the claim on the ground of non-payment of rent he deposited the arrears of rent in court. The trial Court held that sub-letting was lawful in spite of S. 15 of Bombay Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom 57 of 1947). He also held that the appellant did not occupy the premises on the same terms and conditions on which he occupied the old premises in "Fida Ali Villa". He passed a decree for Rs. 445 on account of rent remaining due and dismissed the respondent's suit for ejectment. On appeal the Assistant Judge at Thana reversed the decree holding that S. 15 of the Act completely prohibited sub-letting and under S. 13(1)(e) of the Act the landlord had the right to evict the tenant on account of sub-letting. The appellant then went in revision to the High Court of Bombay, but it affirmed the order of ejetment. The appellant has come to this Court by special leave.