KRISHNAJI MADHAVARAO KHANNUKAR Vs. MAHMED HUSEN BUDANSAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of a suit brought by one Mohamad Hussain, who is the respondent in this revision petition, under the provisions of Section 9 of the specific Relief Act. His case was that he was the tenant of the petitioner in this revision petition. That landlord was defendant 3 in the original suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that one Ka-shimsaheb Gavas, who was not a party to the suit brought by the plaintiff, was the agent of the plaintiff who. under an agreement Exhibit 81, had to manage a hotel which the plaintiff was running in the leased premises, under the terms and conditions incorporated in that agreement. The plaintiff's allegation was that on 4-1-1956, defendant 3 the landlord took possession of the leased building otherwise than in due course of law in collusion with that agent Kashimsaheb Gavas. The plaintiff, therefore, brought a suit for recovery of possession of the leased property of which he was so dispossessed. The suit was resisted by defendant 3 on various grounds. The principal contention that was urged on his behalf was that Kashimsaheb Gavas was not an agent of the plaintiff but was a subtenant. Defendant 3 therefore contended that the plaintiff, having sublet the property to Kashimsaheb Gavas, the landlord became entitled to recover possession of the property and that the plaintiff was, therefore, not competent to bring the present suit. It was also contended by defendant 3 that this was not a case to which the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act applied since the plaintiff could not properly bring this suit as he was bound by the acts done by his agent Kashimsaheb Gavas.

(3.) The Civil Judge made a decree in favour of the plaintiff and it is against that decree that this revision petition has been presented.