RAMALAL SAIGAL Vs. SULTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is impossible to find any substance in the present writ petition which arises out of the proceedings instituted by the respondent under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act. The contention of the respondent was that the suit premises which consists of one room in a building at Narayan Dabholkar Road was given to the present petitioner on leave and licence basis just with a view to accommodate him temporarily and that too without any rent or compensation whatsoever. By a notice dated 29-1-1974, the petitioner was called upon to vacate the room in question and upon his refusal an application was filed by the landlord against the petitioner under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act for possession of the suit premises.

(2.) Summons of the application was served upon the petitioner and he even filed his defence contending firstly that he had initially taken the room on leave and licence basis for paying a sum of Rs. 14,000/- which was to be adjusted towards the monthly compensation fixed at Rs. 40/- per month. He further took the plea that he had become a protected licensee or deemed tenant by virtue of the amendment in the Act within came into force on 1st February, 1972.

(3.) The curious aspect of the matter, however, is that from the year 1974 till the year 1979, the petitioner did not care to remain present in the Court and to attend to the litigation at all, with the result that ultimately the ex parte decree was passed against him on 27-7-1979. The said decree was executed on 17-7-1980 and in the execution possession of the suit premises was taken from him by the decree-holder. It was thereafter that on 18-7-1980 the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree contending that he became aware of the fact about the decree against him only when the same was sought to be executed against him.