RAMCHANDRA GULABRAI SONEJI Vs. MAHOMEDBHAI KADERBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original petitioner M/s. Ramson has been represented initially by Shri Ramchandra Gulabrai Soneji and thereafter after his death by his legal representatives, namely, Geeta Ramchandra Soneji, Haresh Ramchandra Soneji, Chandra Ramchandra Soneji and Sadhana Ramchandra Soneji. They are assailing the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Joint Judge of the Court of Small Causes in Ejectment Application No. 84/e of 1975 so also the judgment and order dated 7-12-83 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Appeal No. 548 of 1982. The order passed by the Additional Joint Judge of the Court of Small Causes is Annexure H annexed to the petition. They further pray that the Ejectment Application No. 84/e of 1975 filed by Mahomedbhai Kaderbhai and other 8 persons be dismissed.

(2.) THE premises in question, the shop No. 2 stood situated at 590 Pipe Road, Hanifabai Chawl, Kurla West, Bombay where one Kaderbhai Adamji, who averred that he was the tenant, was carrying on his business in the name and under the style of "mohamedali Kaderbhai Nulwala and Co. ". Kaderbhai Adamji died leaving behind his heirs who were the applicants in Ejectment application No. 84/e of 1975. As per the averments made by those applicants, after the death of said Mohamedali Kaderbhai, the applicants mentioned above continued the said business under the same name and style. However, according to their averments, the respondents i. e. the present petitioners "m/s. Ramson" requested them to give the said business for conducting and according to the averments of the petitioners, the applicants gave their business of plumbing to the respondents for conducting under an agreement executed on the same day. They also averred that in view of the agreement so executed, the premises in question were also given to the respondents for use and occupation. The applicants in that application averred that the monthly compensation was not paid by those respondents for about 44 months and, therefore, the applicants withdrew and revoked the licence granted to them for conducting the said business and occupation of the said shop by notice dated 28-11-1973. By the said notice they asked the said respondents to vacate the premises in question but those respondents did not comply with the said instruction and, therefore, the above named applicants were compelled to file the said ejectment application.

(3.) THOSE respondents opposed the said application by contending that they were the tenants of the applicants in respect of the premises in question and, therefore, they were not liable to be evicted. According to them, vacant possession of the premises in question was given to them and they started their business in the premises in question. As regards the agreement dated 13-6-1969, according to those respondents, they were given to understand that that would not be acted upon and the said agreement was executed simply in order to charge excessive rent which the respondents had agreed to pay. In the alternative, those respondents claimed that they were protected under the provisions of the Amending Act, 1973 brought into Bombay Rent Control Act and as such they were not liable to be evicted.