JANAKLALI S GOPTA Vs. NAMDEO MAHADEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the landlord of the premises in dispute. Admittedly, the premises were let out to New Prabhat Silk Mills in the year 1954. The Mill, and the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents shall hereafter be referred to as per their rank in the original suit for the sake of convenience and reference as defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively. It appears that originally defendants 2 and 3 were the employees of defendant 1 and they were given residence in Rooms 1 and 3 respectively in the aforesaid premises.

(2.) Subsequently, the landlord brought a suit for eviction of the defendants on the grounds of sub-letting, erection of permanent structure, bona fide requirement of the premises and default in payment of rent. The Small Cause Court decreed the suit excepting defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7.

(3.) Aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal against that part of the order whereby the suit against defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7 was dismissed. The Appellate Court found that defendants 2 and 3 were having a service tenancy and therefore were not covered by the protection made available to the sub-tenant by the Act. The Appellate Court also found that since the sub-tenant made construction which was of a permanent nature it amount to waste and nuisance and therefore they were liable to be ejected on those grounds. Consequently the appeal filed by the landlord was allowed.