LAKHICHAND PUNAMCHAND MARWADI Vs. THAKURNATH DALASAHEB TUKARAM BARSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN my opinion, the point which arises for decisions in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Dharmadhikari and Chaudhary, JJ. Dharmadhikari J. , delivered the concerned judgement in Writ Petition No. 1464 of 1981 (Prabhulal Chhogalala Mandore v. Bastiram Himatram Bhutada and another), on 11th of September, 1989: 1990 (1) Bom. C. R. 529 ). The facts leading to this petition, however, have got to be stated.

(2.) THE respondent as a landlord filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 221 of 1971 against two brothers hereinafter referred to as "defendants" Nos. 1 and 2. The suit was filed on two grounds, namely, that defendant No. 1, who was the original tenant, had illegally sublet the suit premises consisting of four rooms to defendant No. 2 and further that defendant No. 1 was guilty of arrears of rent, deserving a decree of eviction under section 12 (3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act", as it then stood.

(3.) THE trial Court rejected the claim of the respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for possession on the ground of arrears of rent. This was done not merely on merits but also by nothing that the case for default was not pressed in the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial Court, however, held that defendant No. 1, the original tenant, had illegally sublet the suit premises to defendant No. 2. Hence the suit was decreed on the ground available to a landlord under section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act.