KAUSAR HUSEIN MOHAMED HUSHIN Vs. MOHAMED UMER BHOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letter Patent Appeal by the original first defendant against the order of Joshi, J. Summarity dismission his appeal against the order and judgment of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 14th Oct. 1976 decreeing the plaintiff's suit and declaring the plainuits to be the tenants in respect of the suit premises and to be entified to continue in possession thereof and granting perpeinal injunction against the first defendant restraing his from intertering with the possesscion of the plaintiffs and, in a parlicular, for executing the order/decree of possession passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in an ejectment application by the first detendant against the plaintiff and one other person being No. R. A. 201/E/62.

(2.) The main question that arises is, whether on the facts of this case the landiorsres respondents Nos. 2 to 7 could jawfully created a tenancy in favour of the plaintiff when the first defendant was under S. 14 of the Bombay Rent Act, a deemed tenant of the landlords by reason of being a lawful sub tenant on the tenancy of original contractual tenant being determined and had thereafter transferred possession thereof to the plaintiff and one Mohamed Umer Abduit Majid under a leave and licence agreement executed with them.

(3.) It may be pointed out at the outset that at the the initial stage the contention was raised by the first defendant that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the sun as the same being sotely within the jurisdiction of the Court, of Small Causes u/s. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, The trial Court had initially held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit the same being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes and had ordered the return of the plaint for prescuration to proper Court. However, in appeal to this Court against the said order being appeal No. 360/64. This Court held that the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It, therefore, set aside the said order of the City Civil Court and referred the matter back for being heard on merits.