RATANLAL CHANDIPRASAD JALAN Vs. RANIRAM DARKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition along with Writ Petition No. 3575 of 1982 has been referred to the Full Bench. The relevant facts in this petition are few. On 18-6-1977 a decree for possession was passed in Suit No. 5536 of 1970. It was a decree under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as " the Bombay Rent Act"). Its execution was obstructed by the respondents Pabhar Madhu and others. There case was that the defendant tenant had put them in possession of the rented property under a leave and licence agreement dated 16-2-1968 and that this agreement was subsisting on 1-2-1973. By the Amending Act of 1973 such licensees have been protected and they become tenants. The executing Court accepted this contention. The appeal against this decision was dismissed on 19-3-1979. The decree-holders have filed Writ Petition No. 76 of 1980 against it.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 3575 of 1982 ex parte decree for possession was passed on 17-12-1978 under the Bombay Rent Act. The execution of that decree was obstructed. The decree-holders took out obstructionist notice. The contention of the obstructionists (the petitioners in the writ petition) was that they had been in possession of the rented premises since October 1968 as licensees and that they were protected under section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act as the said licence was subsisting on 1-2-1973. The Small Causes Court found that the defendant in the eviction suit was a statutory tenant and that he could not have created any valid licence in favour of the obstructionists. The obstruction was, therefore, ordered to be removed. The petitioners appeal to the Appellate Bench was dismissed. The petitioners filed Suit No. 6220 of 1975 for declaration that they were the tenants on the basis of their erstwhile rights under the licence deed. That suit was dismissed. Appeal No. 334 of 1982 was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3575 of 1982. When this writ petition was initially heard by the learned Single Judge, he referred the matter to the Division Bench. On 26-4-1984 the Division Bench of Kurdukar and Jamdar, JJ., passed an order that certain questions should be referred to the Full Bench as the Division Bench was not able to agree with the earlier decisions of this Court in First Appeal No. 754 of 1978 and Writ Petition No. 2447 of 1974 reported in (Vasant v. Dikkaya) A.I.R. 1980 Bombay 341. The Division Bench, therefore, referred the relevant questions to the Full Bench.

(3.) When both these matters were placed before us for hearing, we found that Writ Petition No. 3575 can be decided without considering the questions referred to us. Accordingly, that petition was disposed of. However, the learned Advocates appearing in both the petitions submitted that the questions referred to the Full Bench should be decided by us with a view to settle the controversy once for all. Taking into account, the importance of these questions, we also think it fit to decide these questions. We have heard the learned Advocates on behalf of both the sides. We felt that the formation of the questions that have been referred to us should be modified a little and accordingly we have formulated the following questions.