MOHANSING SAHEBSING Vs. BABULAL RAMESHWARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The next question which is required to be considered is whether the plaintiff could validly create lawful tenancy in his specified portion which was allotted to the defendants. According to the plaintiff the property belongs to Katpitia Mahajan. In his evidence at Exh. 91 the plaintiff stated that the said place was kept on rent by Shri Ramchandra Kanayalal who was his grand father. He further stated that the place which was kept on rent from Katpitia Mahajan was on open place without any walls. According to him he had constructed a roof in the said place. That roof was constructed of corrugated iron sheets. According to him he was in possession of the entire place. From this place he carved out as specified portion which was handed over to the defendants. According to him he was paying rent of Rs. 150/per month for the whole portion According to his own admission he had inducted at least 4 such persons and he was earning about Rs. 20 0 to Rs. 95 0 per year.

(2.) Sec. 15 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 provided that no sub tenancy could he created in absence of the contract to the contrary. The relevant part of sec. 15 reads as under :-

(3.) Another case which was referred to was a case of WAMAN SHRINIWAS KINI V. RATILAL BHAGWANDAS AND CO., AIR 1959 SC 689. In paragraph 7 of that Judgment it was observed as under :-