YAMANAWWA BHLMAPPA KAMBLE Vs. RAYAVVA NALAPPA KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation spells a second inning taken by the present appellant in connection with her insistence to occupy the suit premises, which right has been held as un-established by both the courts below.

(2.) The facts are simple : The appellant is the original defendant. The suit premises are admittedly governed by the Rent Act. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereafter as the "plaintiff" and the "defendant". According to the plaintiff, the suit premises namely the two rooms in the house in question, are held by the plaintiff as a tenant. Further, according to the plaintiff, the two rooms are now in possession of the defendant by virtue of no right whatsoever and as such the defendant is a rank trespasser in respect of the premises. The defendant, on the other hand, had been contending, in the first place, that she was a sun-tenant licensee in respect of the suit premises. After the said plea has been finally rejected even by this Court in the earlier litigation, now she contends that she was a licensee in respect of the suit premises and that her licence was protected by the Rent Act. Both the Court below have negatived even this latter contention of the defendant and hence this Second Appeal.

(3.) Some more facts will clarify this position. According to the defendant, she had been in possession of the suit premises from the point of time even prior to 1968 as sub-tenant of the plaintiff. In the year 1972 she filed a Civil Suit (Civil Suit No. 1831 of 1972) for a declaration that she was a lawful sub-tenant of the present plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. She had also filed another suit earlier; but I will refer to that litigation a little later. In the said suit filed in the Small Causes Court, the trial Court held that the plaintiff in that suit had failed to prove that fact the she was a lawful sub-tenant. In fact the Court held that she was not residing in the suit premises upon payment of any consideration at all; rather it can be said that her plea that she had been paying consideration for residence in the suit premises was negatived by the Court, because according to the Court, she had failed to prove that fact. Her suit was, therefore, dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal filed against the same met with the same fate. The writ petition filed against the same was rejected by this Court in the year 1978. In the meantime, the instant suit was filed by the present plaintiff in the year 1975 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pune, for recovery of the suit premises from the defendant. The suit is filed purely on title with the contention that the defendant has no right, title and interest in the suit premises. In this suit the defendant once again came out with a case that she was a sub-tenant in respect of the suit premises. In the alternative, she also contended that she was a licensee in respect of the suit premises. This suit was decided by the trial Court on 30th September, 1982. By this time, this Court has already finally negatived the defendants plea that she was a lawful sub-tenant in respect of the suit premises. Hence the defendants contention that she was a lawful sub-tenant in respect of the suit premises could not be persisted with by the defendant. However, taking advantage of the fact that the Rent Act was amended on 1-2-1973, the defendant now came out with a plea that if she was not a lawful sub-tenant of the suit premises, in any event she was a protected licensee in respect of the same and, as such, was entitled to protection of the Rent Act.