LAXMIBAI RAMJI Vs. KHIMJI PALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners--original plaintiffs are trustees of Shah Ramji Ravji Sojpal Trust Estate which owns a building known as Ramji Sojpal Building situate at Junction of S. K. Bole Road and Gokhale Road (North), Dadar, Mumbai. The original defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of shop bearing Nos. 6 and 7 in the said building on a monthly rent of Rs. 102. 64, inclusive of compensation for loft and cabin space for electric meter, prior to the termination of his tenancy by notice to quit dated 2nd April, 1964. The petitioners terminated the tenancy of the defendant as his business was closed since 31-5-1971 and thereafter started business of Worli Matka in the aforesaid shop premises through his son Chhaganlal Khimji and he and/or his servants have been convicted for using or allowing the shop premises for illegal purposes by running Worli Matka which is illegal gambling and against public policy. The petitioners further state that the shop premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let out for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit and, therefore, the petitioner-plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the defendant vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises.

(2.) THE defendant contended that he is carrying on business in the firm name M/s. Khimji Palan and Co. along with his two sons who were admitted as partners in the said firm. The defendant denied that there has been any transfer or assignment of interest in the tenancy unlawfully or otherwise in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "bombay Rent Act" ). The defendant denied that the suit premises were let out for the purpose of running grain shop as alleged. The defendant denied that he closed the business in May 1971 and/or at all started Worli Matka business in the shop premises. He further denied that he and/or Chhaganlal Khimji and/or his servants were convicted of using or allowing the suit premises to be used for illegal purposes as alleged. The defendant denied that the suit premises have not been used for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the suit without reasonable cause or at all and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs being false and baseless deserves to be dismissed with costs.

(3.) ON the basis of these pleadings, the trial Court having found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendant has unlawfully sub-let, assigned or transferred his interest in the suit premises to M/s. Khimji Palan and Co. or that the defendant has been convicted for using the suit premises or allowing the premises to be used for immoral and illegal purpose and that the defendant is not using the suit premises for six months immediately preceding the date of the suit.