BALDEVINDERSINGH CHANDLOK Vs. RATAI DORAB PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition directed against the order dated 25.4.1995 which is a common judgment in Appeal Nos. 1 and 8 of 1994 on the file of Appellate Bench of Court of Small Causes at Bombay. Heard both sides.

(2.) MR . Dorab Patel, whose wife and son are the respondents, was the tenant of the entire flat of which the suit room is a part. According to Mr. Dorab Patel he had allowed the present petitioner to occupy one bed-room, which is the suit room, as a paying guest. He, therefore, filed a suit for eviction in the Court below. In turn, the petitioner filed as suit against Mr. Dorab Patel for a declaration that he is in possession of the suit premises as a protected licencee. Both the suits were heard together. After trial, the trial Court held that the present petitioner is staying in the premises as a paying guest and not as a licencee. The tenant's suit was decreed and the petitioner's suit was dismissed. The petitioner carried the matter in two appeals before the Appellate Bench. Even the Appellate Bench concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed both the appeals. Hence the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

(3.) IT is admitted case of the petitioner that he entered the suit premises as a paying guest. It is admitted by him that when he came to occupy the suit premises, the main tenant was in occupation of the remaining premises. This is further corroborated by the petitioner's letter dated 8.6.1973. Now, the petitioner's version is that after two years the tenant shifted to Pune. Both the parties have adduced evidence on this aspect and both the Courts below have rejected the petitioner's version that the tenant shifted to Pune. Once it is shown that the petitioner was inducted in the premises as a paying guest and even if the tenant shifted to Pune temporarily, that will not be of any consequence. In my view, there is no illegality or infirmity in both the impugned orders.