VASANT RAMCHANDRA SHARMA Vs. NARAYANIBAI MULCHAND AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitioners arise out of a suit filed against the petitioners and others under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and can be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be briefly stated as follows : There is in Polan Peth in Jalgaon a plot of land having City Survey nos. 1862. Out of the said plot, an area measuring 117 1/2 feet east-west and 150 feet north-south is the subject-matter of the dispute between the parties to these petitions. The said area, which will be hereinafter referred to as "the suit plot", is owned by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit. The plaintiffs are respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in each of these petitions. Defendant No. 1, in each of these petitions. Defendant No. 1, who is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1821 of 1968 and respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1839 of 1968 and 1840 of 1968 and respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1839 of 1968 and 1840 of 1968, was the tenant of the suit plot. Defendants Nos. 2 to 17 in the original suit were impleaded in the suit as persons to whom the various structures built by defendant No. 1 were let by him and who claim to be lawful sub-tenant of defendant No. 1 even in respect of the suit plot. Although a decree for eviction is passed against all the defendants, defendant No. 1 alone has filed the above Special Civil Application No. 1821 of 1968 challenging the said decision; defendant No. 2 has filed Special Civil Application No. 1839 of 1968; and defendant No. 4 and heirs of defendant No. 7 have filed Special Civil Application no. 1840 of 1968.

(3.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiffs for evicting all the said defendants Nos. 1 to 17 on the ground that defendant No. 1 was their statutory tenant; that the standard rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 95/- per month under a compromise decree in regular Civil Suit No. 416 of 1962 filed earlier by them; that defendant No. 1 failed and neglected to pay to the plaintiffs rent from September 1, 1962 to October 31, 1965: that the plaintiffs gave notice to defendant No. 1 dated October 5, 1965 and terminated his tenancy under Section 12 (2); that a copy of the said notice was also sent to defendants Nos. 2 to 17 for information; that though the notice was duly served on the tenant-defendant No. 1, possession of the suit plot was not delivered to the plaintiffs and arrears of rent were not paid to them and hence they filed the suit to recover possession. In the suit possession was claimed under Section 12 (3) (a) and also on the ground that defendant No. 1 had let out portions of the suit plot to defendants Nos. 2, 9, 13 and 17 illegally and without their consent after January 1, 1962.