SHAIKH SHAHBUDDIN BALABHAI Vs. SYED HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing municipal house no.3883 bearing City Survey 3856 B situated at Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the said property). The original respondent no.1 was a tenant in respect of the premises consisting of 2 khans situated on the ground floor of the said property (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises). The original respondent no.1 died during the pendency of this Writ Petition and his heirs were brought on record. Despite service of the notice, the legal representatives of the respondent no.1 have not appeared in this Court. Respondent no.2 is the alleged sub tenant.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 501/1976 against the respondents for possession of the suit premises on several grounds under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act) in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar . The trial court decreed the suit on 3 grounds viz. (1) default in payment of the rent; (2) unlawful sub letting; and (3) the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord. The appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.343/1982 filed by the respondents was allowed by the IV Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar who reversed the judgment of the trial court on all counts and dismissed the petitioner's suit. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT is common ground between the parties that the suit premises were taken on rent for the purpose of running a Hotel business. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent no.1 was employeed as a Door Keeper in a Cinema Theatre and was not personally running the Hotel but had sub let it to respondent no.2. The petitioner has produced on record the certified copy of the Licence under Shops and Establishment Act issued in the joint names of respondent nos.1 and 2 on 27th February 1970. The suit premises were let out in January 1970 and the licence was taken in the joint name of respondent nos.1 and 2 in February 1970 i.e. immediately after the letting. Evidence on record shows that the landlord had given consent for obtaining the Licence . It means since beginning the landlord was aware of the fact that petitioner and respondent no.2 were to jointly run the hotel and gave consent to it. Under sub section (2) of Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act, the prohibition against the sub letting is deemed to have had no effect before 1st February 1973. As the alleged sub letting in the present case was from February 1970 i.e. prior to 1st February 1973, the landlord is not entitled to possession on this ground also.