JAYPRAKASH SHAMSUNDER MANDARE Vs. LAXMINARAYAN MURLIDHAR MUNDADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings initiated by respondents Nos. 1 to 7, in this petition under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act". They had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 577 of 1973, in the Court of Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Jalgaon against the petitioner, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit, and one Madanlal Fakirchand Tiwari, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit. Mandanlal Fakrichand Tiwari died after the decree of the trial Court and his heirs and legal representatives are respondents Nos. 8(A) to 8(I) in this petition. For the sake of convenience, the said Mandanlal Fakirchand Tiwari will be referred to as "defendant No. 1".

(2.) The suit had been filed for possession of a shop bearing No. 4 and situated in House No. 159 of Navipeth at Jalgaon. The said shop, hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises", was tenanted by defendant No. 1. By a registered document, which is at Exhibit 77, dated 5th of February, 1973 defendant No. 1 assigned the business that was carried on in the suit premises to defendant No. 2 and as an incident to that transfer he also assigned his tenancy rights in the suit premises. By giving what can be briefly called a quit notice on 7th of May, 1973 respondent Nos. 1 to 7, hereinafter called "the plaintiffs", filed the aforesaid suit for possession of the suit premises on the ground that defendant No. 1 had unlawfully assigned his interest in the suit premises in contravention of section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act and was thus liable for eviction under section 13(1)(e) of the Act.

(3.) Both the defendants resisted the suit by contending that the assignment dated 5th February, 1973 was saved by the notification issued by the State Government under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act. According to the defendants No. 1 has assignment the business carried on in the suit premises as a going concern and incidential to that assignment he has transferred his total interest in the suit premise to defendant No. 2. Therefore, neither defendant No. 1 nor defendant No. 2 was liable to be evicted from the suit premises.