ABID HAIDARALI KACHWALA Vs. JAMUNA SHYAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenged the correctness of the judgment dated November 20, 1974, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes dismissing their suit for eviction of the respondent.

(2.) The petitioners are the owners of the premises bearing No. 85, Dhanji Street, Bombay, having purchased the some same time in the year 1957. The premises consist of ground floor and the and the first floor and were originally let out to Mohanlal Nanhamal for the purpose of his business. The original letting was some time in the year 1940 and the monthly rent was Rs. 144.35. The respondent No. 1 Jamuna Shyam Sunder is the daughter of original tenant, while respondent No. 2 Gaya Prasad is the nephew. It is the contention of the petitioner that the front portion of the building was unlawfully sub-let by Mohanlal in favour of respondent No. 3 for running a flour mill. The petitioners further contend that the respondent No. 4 was inducted in the rest of the property as a sub-tenant unlawfully after coming into force of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The petitioners further contend that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were inducted by respondent No. 4 as his sublessees.

(3.) The petitioners terminated the tenancy of original tenant Mohanlal and instituted R.A.E. Suit No. 415/3263 of 1964 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay claiming possession of the premises from the original tenant as well as respondents Nos. 3 to 6 on the ground that the original tenant was guilty of sub-letting, while the other respondents are not in the legal occupation. The petitioners also claimed possession on the ground that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by them for occupation. The claim in the suit was made under section 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(g) of the Act. The petitioners also claimed possession on the ground that the original tenant was guilty of profiteering and has also changed the user of the premises and has committed an act which has resulted into waste and damage to the premises. The petitioners also claimed that the premises were not used continuously for a period of six months prior to the date of the institution of the suit.