MAZDA THEATERS PVT. LTD Vs. SHARAD LAXMAN GALVANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, I shall dispose of these two writ petitions since they arise out of the same order and involve the identical question.

(2.) THE only argument canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners appearing in both the writ petitions is that the Appeal Court seriously erred in not holding cabins in the room as less than the room within the meaning of Section 15A of Bombay Rents, 'Hotel Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.

(3.) BEFORE me there is no challenge to the findings that the concerned obstructionists came in possession in their respective cabins before 1.2.1973 on the basis of leave and licence agreements granted by original tenant and that on 1.2.1973 such leave and licence agreements were subsisting. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that each cabin in occupation of the respective obstructionist is less, than the room as contemplated by Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel Lodging House Rates (Control) Act,' 1947 (For short 'Bombay Rent Act').