SUPRIYA S KALE Vs. RANJIT DIWADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision applicants herein, are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 100 of 2002 filed by them for declaration that, they are the tenants in respect of the suit shop and for an injunction to restrain the respondents herein from dispossessing them from the suit shop without following due process of law. The trial Court, decreed the suit by its judgment and order dated 28 th September, 2007. The respondents challenged the judgment and decree by preferring appeal to the District Court. Their appeal was allowed by the judgment and order dated 20 th January, 2012. The present Revision Application has been filed by the applicants to challenge the order of the Appellate Court.

(2.) RESPONDENT no.1 is the owner of the suit shop being Shop No.4, Ground Floor, Gopigan Apartments, Naupada, Thane. On 22 nd March, 1994 an agreement for leave and license was executed between respondent no.1 and applicant no.2 for allowing applicant no.2 to use and occupy the suit shop as a licensee for a period of 11 months i.e. until 28 th February, 1995 on payment of license fees of Rs.3,000/ p.m. and on other terms and conditions as stated in the agreement. Thereafter, on 22 nd February 1995, 2 nd February 1997, 8 th January 1998, 2 nd November 1999, 17 th October 2000 and 4 th October 2001, agreements for leave and license, each for a period of 11 months came to be executed in respect of the suit shop. The last two agreements were executed with applicant no.1 and not applicant no.2. The respondents served notice dated 5 th January, 2002 upon applicant no.1 revoking the license and calling upon applicant no.1 to vacate the suit premises. The notice was received by applicant no.1 on 7 th January, 2002. Thereafter, the suit came to be filed on 2 nd February, 2002.

(3.) IT is the case of the applicants, that the real transaction between the parties was never of a license as stated in the agreements executed by the parties, but was of tenancy. The respondents, however, had prepared documents of leave and license, which had been signed by the applicants from time to time, only to avoid spoiling of relations. After taking the premises on tenancy, the applicants claim to have started business therein in the name of 'Saraswati Stationery and Provision Stores'. The applicants have obtained two telephone connections, one in the name of applicant no.2 as the proprietor of Saraswati Stationery and Provision Stores and other in the name of his brother, Sandeep at the address of the suit shop. The applicants allege in the plaint that, in the last week of January, 2002 the respondents had approached them at the shop premises and threatened to dispossess them without following due process of law. On the allegations as made, the applicants sought declaration that, applicant no.1 is the tenant in respect of the suit shop as described in the plaint and for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the applicants from the suit shop without following due process of law. The description of the suit shop as given in the plaint reads as follows :