CHANDRAKANT GORDHANDAS SHAH Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Suren (India) Traders. The petitioner is occupying half portion of Room No. 413 on the 4th floor of Union Bank Building, situate at 66/80 Apollo Street, Fort, Bombay under an agreement of leave and licence between the petitioner and one H.D. Commercial Corporation. The first respondent, Union Bank of India is the owner of the said building. Room No. 413 in the said building was originally given on lease to M/s. H.D. Commercial Corporation at a monthly rent of Rs. 215.36 paise. The tenancy of the said Corporation was terminated by the Union Bank of India by their Advocates letter dated 6th February, 1965. Thereafter another notice was issued to the said Corporation dated 18th August, 1966 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the said Corporation to pay the rent of the said premises from 1-4-1965 to 31-7-1966. Thereafter, the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay being RAE & R Suit No. 799/6720 of 1966 for possession of the said room. M/s. H.D. Commercial Corporation were the first defendants in the said suit. The present petitioner who is in occupation of a half portion of the said room, was joined as defendant No. 2. One Raghunath N. Rao, doing business in the name and style of M/s. S.S. Machinery Parts (India) and occupying the other portion of the said room was joined as defendant No. 3. During the pendency of the said suit defendant No. 3 left the said premises. M/s. Shyama Coastal Shipping Co. Private Limited and M/s. Shyama Engineering Industries were inducted into the said premises (the other half of the said room) during the pendency of the suit and they were also impleaded as party defendants 4 and 5 in the said suit.

(2.) The proprietor of M/s. H.D. Commercial Corporation was adjudicated insolvent during the pendency of the suit and his estate vested in the Official Assignee.

(3.) In the said suit it was the contention of the 2nd defendant (who is the petitioner herein) that he was a lawful sub-tenant of the half portion of the said room which was in this occupation from a period prior to 21st May, 1959. During the pendency of the suit, the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 came to be amended. As a result certain licensees, as defined in the said Act, who were in occupation of premises under a subsisting licence prior to 1st February, 1973 were also given protection under the said Act. Thereafter the 2nd defendant amended his written statement and raised a plea that he was a protected licensee under the provisions of the said Act as amended.