MUNAWAR KHAN HUSSEIN KHAN Vs. SOMNATH H HOLKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) FOLLOWING question of law arises for consideration in this writ petition: 1. Whether amendments to the Bombay Rents Hotels and Lodging Houses rates Control Act, 1947 (For short 'bombay Rent Act') made by the legislature of Maharashtra, after it was made applicable to the cantonment areas in the state of Maharashtra by a notification dated 27/12/1969 issued by the Central Government are also applicable to the cantonment areas?

(3.) THE facts giving rise to the petition may briefly be stated thus: the suit property consists of a room in House No. 392, Kolsa Galli, mahatma Gandhi Road situated within the local limits of Pune Cantonment, in the State of Maharashtra. The suit premises were owned by the respondent no. 1, Somnath Laxman Holkar, who has died during the pendency of the petition and is represented by his legal representatives. One Ms. Aminabi bohari was a tenant of the suit premises and the respondent No. 2 is said to be an heir of Ms. Aminabi. Munwar Khan Hussein Khan was a sub-tenant of aminabi and the present petitioners are the heirs of the sub-tenant Munnawar khan. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 in the Small Causes Court, Pune inter alia on the ground that Aminabi had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to Munnawar khan. In the trial Court, the petitioners inter alia contended that they were in possession of the suit premises prior to the year 1959 and were thus, protected sub tenants by virtue of Bombay Act No. 49 of 1959. The trial Court however found that Munnawar Khan through whom the petitioners claim was a sub-tenant since the year 1961 and hence was not a protected subtenant and passed a decree for possession. On appeal, the Appellate Court held that Aminabi had sub-let the suit premises to Munawar Khan sometime after the year 1963-64 and therefore, Munnawar Khan was an unlawful subtenant and confirmed the decree for possession. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioners have filed this petition challenging the judgment and order of the Appellate Court confirming the decree for possession.