R B PAKHARE Vs. H K PALAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Special Civil Application arises out of Ejectment Application No. 78/E of 1962, filed by the respondent under section 41 of the Presidency Towns Small Causes Court Act, 1882, in the Court of the Small Causes at Bombay, on the footing that the petitioner was a licensee of the respondent and the respondent was his licensor in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, a tailoring shop, known as "Swastik Tailoring Firm" on the ground floor of Deoshi Tokersey Building, at 227-229, Jijibhoy Lane, Lalbaug, Bombay- 400 012.

(2.) In his application, the respondent stated that by an agreement, dated July 16, 1960, he gave to the petitioner-defendant and the dependent took from the plaintiff, his tailoring shop for conducting it on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. By the said agreement, the respondent gave leave and licence to the petitioner to occupy the premises for a period which expired on December 31, 1961, and the respondent by his Advocates notice date January 3, 1962, called upon the petitioner to give vacant petitioner was falsely contending to be the sub-tenant in the premises in reply to that notice. The respondent prayed for recovery of peaceful possession of the shop premises from the petitioner.

(3.) The application was opposed by the petitioner by filing points of defences contending that the petitioner was in the premises as a sub-tenant from 1947, uninterruptedly and not merely under he so called agreement of leave and licence dated July 16, 1960, as contended by the respondent. He submitted that the agreement was intended not to be acted upon and was made to save the position of the respondent, because it is clear that under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, he respondent would not be permitted to sub-let the premises to the defendant. The defendant claimed to be in occupation of the premises, since 1947. He claimed to have been in exclusive possession of the suit premises and, therefore, contended that he had rightly denied the allegations made by the respondent in his notice and stated that he was a sub-tenant lawfully protected under the provisions of section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act, from the year since 1947, as amended by the Ordinance of 1959, which came into force on November 15, 1959.