RAMDAS DRUG AGENCIES Vs. MAYADEVI HARISHANKARJI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present Letters patent Appeal, the appellants impugn the judgment and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, on September 12, 2005 in the writ Petition No. 2649 of 1993, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants.

(2.) Few facts essential far deciding the present letters Patent Appeal are as under :-

(3.) The appellants claimed that the original landlord Dr. Khot, had let out the premises in question to tenant M/s Aphali pharmaceuticals Limited, i. e. respondent No. 3 in this appeal. Respondent no. 3 had appointed appellants as their regional stockist and given the suit premises in the possession of the appellants somewhere in April, 1965 as sub-tenant. The appellants specifically averred that for such sub-letting by respondent no. 3 to the appellants there was a written permission that was given by the Dr. Khot. The appellants then pleaded that since thereafter appellants have been in occupation of the suit premises and the licenses were renewed from time to time in their favour by the Authorities. They further averred that Dr. Khot permanently left for London with his family in the year 1984-85 and expired in London but the rent was regularly paid by the appellants to respondent No. 3 and as such, after coming into force of second amendment effective from 26-10-1989, to the rent Control order, the status of the appellants stood elevated to a tenant in place of respondent No. 3 and as such, the appellants were the tenants of the landlord. The appellants then, set up a plea of acquiescence stating that the original landlord Dr. Khot had never objected to the occupation of the appellants from the year 1965 and therefore, the conduct of the landlord indicated acquiescence.