RAJU R SHETTY Vs. RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On June 1, 1962, the respondent, Babu Sukhdevsing, filed a suit against the petitioner, Raju Ramappa Shetty, in the Court of the Small Causes at Bombay, to recover possession of the shops bearing Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on the ground floor of the building known as Raghuraj Bhavan on Gokhale Road South, Dadar, Bombay 28, and for costs.

(2.) The plaintiffs case as made out in the plaint was briefly as follows :--- The plaintiff is the owner of the suit building and he let out shops Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on the ground floor of the said building to the defendant with effect from March 1, 1960 on a monthly rental of Rs. 311/- under an agreement in writing, as per the terms and conditions of that agreement. The defendant was to pay the monthly rent in advance before the 10th of each month and he agreed to pay electric meter charges and the bill for electric energy consumed by him. He also undertook not to burn firewood in the premises and not to keep the animals thereon. He also agreed to pay for hire of water meter as also for the water charges charged by the Municipality without any deduction from the monthly rent payable by him. He undertook not to make any alterations or fixtures without the written consent of the landlord.

(3.) One of the terms provided that the defendant would not sub-let or transfer the premises whole or in part to anyone else during his tenancy but hand over the same to the landlord, when the desired to vacate. The agreement was on a stamp paper of Rs. 1.50 Ps. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed and neglected to pay the rent in respect of the premises from August 1, 1961. The defendant was alleged to have contravened the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act as well as the express terms and conditions of the tenancy by sub-letting four portions of the said premises to a tailor, a Panshopwalla and a book-stallwala and a coirman. It was further alleged that the defendant in order to make out separate shops for the said four persons put up without the consent of the plaintiff partition walls and other fixtures in the nature of permanent structures. The coirman had vacated in or about February 1962.