GORDHANDAS LALCHND Vs. KUBCHAND TIRTHDAS TAILOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the order dated 23. 2. 1999 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small causes Court, Mumbai, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5- obstructionists came to be allowed and the obstructionist notice came to be set aside. THE FACTS: the facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are as under.

(2.) THE petitioner in the owner of a property known as "sudama House" situated at kandivali, Mumbai. Respondent No. 1 was his monthly tenant occupying a portion of an Olla (i. e. verandah admeasuring ( 6x3') by the side of shop no. 6 located in the said 'sudama House'.

(3.) THE Respondent No. 1 was carrying on his tailoring business from the said Olla (hereinafter referred to as"the suit premises") provided with electricity supply. He had paid rent till May 1964. He, thereafter, failed and neglected to pay any rent. Respondent No. 1 left Mumbai and went to godhara (Gujarat), his native place sometime in the year 1963. He, while leaving Mumbai, assigned his tenancy rights in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and put them in possession of the suit premises. Since rent was not paid for several months and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were inducted illegally as sub-tenants, petitioner terminated tenancy of respondent No. 1 by notice dated 18. 1. 1965 issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The first notice could not be served on respondent no. 1 at Mumbai since he had moved to Godhara. However, another notice sent to respondent No. 1 was duly received by him. Notices were also served on respondent Nos. 2 and 3. None of the notices was complied with by the tenant as such eviction suit bearing RAE Suit No. 1239 of 1966 came to be filed against all the respondents on 23. 2. 1966. Respondent No. 2 died on 2. 11. 1965. His heirs were not brought on record. A joint written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3. In the said written statement it was contended that defendant no. 1 had transferred his business of selling books in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as a going concern under a Deed of Assignment dated 25. 2. 1965 as such they were protected under section 15 of the, Bombay Rent Act.