SHRINIVAS SUBYYA ALWA Vs. KRISHNAVANI VASUDEO MUDLIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE applications arise out of the ejectment proceedings initiated by the landlady under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. In Special Civil Application No. 977 of 1970 the tenant -original defendant No. 1 is the petitioner and in Special Civil Application No. 1391 of 1970 the sub -tenant original defendant No. 2 is the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 -landlady gave House No. 365 Rasta Peth, Poona together with the bungalow, outhouses etc. on lease in the year 1948 to the petitioner under the rent note dated November 18, 1948. The period under the said rent note was three months from October 20, 1948 onwards. Even after the expiry of the said period the petitioner continued to be in possession of the premises but the premises were used by them for running a lodging and boarding house. The petitioner under a different document sublet two rooms out of these premises to the sub -tenant, who is using the said two rooms for a godown. He is a money lender and he used those two rooms for the purpose of storing articles pledged with him. His sub -tenancy started in the year 1961. It appears that in the year 1966 the sub -tenant filed an application for the purpose of fixing the standard rent of the suit premises. Although the petitioner was to pay rent at Rs. 75 per month to the landlady, the petitioner rented the two rooms at a rent of Rs. 75 to the sub -tenant. He, therefore, complained about this rent and wanted the standard rent to be fixed. It is at this time that the landlady learnt that the petitioner had sublet the two rooms to the sub -tenant.

(2.) SHE , therefore, served a notice on the petitioner to quit on February 2, 1966 on the ground that the petitioner had unlawfully sublet the two rooms. Her other ground for the purpose of ejecting the petitioner -tenant was that he was profiteering by subletting the two rooms. The third ground on which she wanted to eject the petitioner was that the premises were not used by the petitioner for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the suit.

(3.) THE learned advocate Mr. Abhyankar for the tenant -petitioner, original defendant No. 1, contends here that the learned Extra Assistant Judge has committed an error in law when he decided that the notice terminating the tenancy was valid and when he ordered the tenant to deliver possession. According to him Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case because the case of the original tenant and the sub -tenant is governed only by Section 5(8)(b) ; that the word 'premises' in the Kent Act does not include a room or other accommodation in a hotel or lodging house. On the other hand, the learned advocate Mr. Vaidya for the respondent -landlady contends here that the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) are attracted to the facts and circumstances of our case and that in the circumstances of our case a notice in fact is not necessary under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 'We will, therefore, have to examine these rival contentions.