(1.) THE petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. The controversy revolving around a shop styled as, " Mascric Biddi Works" having measurement 9' X 15' situated at Dadar Mumbai. The late husband of respondent Mr. Rajaram Appa Parhsetye, as he was sick at that time, entered into a conducting agreement dated 2/1/1966 for 11 months with the petitioner and allowed his running business to conduct in the name and style as "Masric Bidi Works" On 26/3/1967, the respondent being a Pardanshin housewife and sick, and as was unable to run the shop, she entered into a similar agreement on 1/7/1967. Such agreements were renewed from time to time. The last agreement therefore, entered into between the parties on 14th February, 1987. The respondent, however, requested to handover the said running business with premises. The last day, as per the last agreement for conducting the business was 14th January, 1988. The petitioner, instead of handing over the business, and premises preferred the R.A.D. suit No. 649 of 1988, in the Small Causes Court, Bombay (trial Court) on 12/2/1988. The same was resisted by the written statement. The learned trial Court after considering the rival contentions, as well as, the evidence led by the parties, by an order dated 3rd August 1995, dismissed the suit for declaration as sought i.e. protected sub-tenant, as contemplated under Bombay Rent, Hotel And Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act).
(2.) IN the meantime, the respondent has filed suit B.C.C.V. Suit No.979 of 1990 for declaration and for recovery of possession of suit business against the petitioner on 30/1/1990 and same is still pending.
(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The basic conducting agreement dated 2nd January, 1966 and its surrounding circumstances, are relevant to decide the present litigation between the parties. Therefore, the relevant clauses of the agreement are reproduced as under;