P.K. DESHMUKH Vs. SUDHABAI AMRUTRAO GAMBHIRRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent runs a lodging house in a building known as Parsi Bungalow at Mankhurd, which she occupied as a tenant. The name of the lodging house is "Rajvilas Hindu Lodgo". The petitioner occupied since April 10, 1959, room No. 2, as a lodger, agreeing to pay Rs. 25 per month as lodging charges. According to the contention of the plaintiff no one was allowed to cook anything in the room. The petitioner brought his family members and started cooking. The plaintiff protested against this conduct. She also alleged that the petitioner was irregular in payment of lodging charges. She made an application to the Controller under section 39 for a certificate for evicting the petitioner. This certificate was granted to the opponent on Oct. 21, 1963, The respondent then filed the suit, being E. A. E. Suit No. 5382 of 1963 in the Small Causes Court at Bombay for evicting the petitioner. The petitioner contended that he had contended before the Controller that he was a sub-tenant in the suit premises and was paying Rs. 25 per month for the room in his occupation. This contention was negatived by the learned Judge and a decree was passed against the petitioner under section 39 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The petitioner went in appeal to the Bench of Judges under section 29 of the Act. This appeal was dismissed under 0, XLI, r. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner seeks to revise this order.

(2.) Mr. Adik has raised four points before me. They are: (i) That the appellate Court has not given any reasons for the dismissal of the appeal summarily, which under O. XLI, r. 11, it is necessary to give and I should Bet aside the said order and direct the learned Judge to re-hear the matter and re-write the judgment; (ii) That against the certificate granted by the Controller he had filed an appeal to the State Government under section 42, which was not heard until Sept. 1, 1965; the plaintiff's suit was, therefore, premature and no decree could possibly be passed in such a suit ; (iii) The question whether the petitioner was a sub-tenant in the suit premises or a lodger, had to be determined by the Court, but inasmuch as the Court has relied upon the certificate of the Controller the decision of the Court is vitiated and is not binding on this petitioner; and (iv) That the petitioner was not a lodger as he had not signed the necessary form of declaration and rules furnished by the plaintiff-opponent.

(3.) In support of the first contention Mr. Adik relies upon the decision in Gangahai Vs. Gourishankar 1965 Mh. L.J. 408 : (1964) 67 Bom. L.R. 231 where we have held that