PREMIER SYNTHETIC PROCESSORS LIMITED Vs. ROSHAN F CHINOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the original defendants-tenants.

(2.) The 1st respondent is the daughter of the 2nd respondent. The former, hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, has been working as an Assistant Pathologist in Tata Memorial Centre, Bombay, since August 1975. She and her mother (2nd respondent) brought a suit in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, in June 1977 for eviction of the petitioners on two grounds under sections 13(1)(g) and 13-A2 of the Bombay Rent Act (hereafter "the Act"). The premises involved are a flat on the 1st floor of Amalfi", Napean Road, Bombay. The 1st petitioners are a public limited company (hereinafter for short, the company). The 2nd respondent is their Managing Director. Admittedly under an Agreement of Leave and Licence dated 22nd April, 1971, the suit flat along with a garage was granted by the plaintiff and her mother to the Company for a period of three years from 16th March, 1971 to 15th March, 1974. The Agreement was executed by the 2nd petitioner on behalf of the Company. There is no dispute that the flat was taken for his occupation. As the Licence was admittedly subsisting on 1st of February, 1973, the Company became deemed tenant under section 15-A of the Act. The 3rd and the 4th petitioners are Officers of the Company. During the pendency of the eviction suit the 2nd petitioner left the premises for good. Thereafter the 3rd and the 4th petitioners came to be inducted therein by the Company in succession. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff had obtained a Certificate dated 29th March, 1977 from the Director of the Department of Atomic Energy, Bombay, that she was holding a Scientific Post in the Tata Memorial Centre which was an aided institution within the meaning of Explanation 1 to section 13-A2, and that she did not possess any other suitable residence in the local area where she or the members of her family could reside. The petitioners challenged both grounds of eviction. The trial Court decreed the suit on both grounds. The appeal taken by the petitioners to a Bench of two Judges of the same Court, came to be summarily dismissed. The learned Judges have recorded an exhaustive reasoned order running into 36 pages. Both Courts have thus held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession not only under section 13-bA2 but also under section 13(1)(g) of the Act. While upholding the latter ground they have also recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff on the question of comparative hardship. It is this decision which is now the subject-matter of challenge before me.

(3.) Shri Dalvi for the petitioners has raised a preliminary question that the Appellate Bench went wrong in dismissing the appeal summarily, when a number of triable issues had arisen for their consideration. He contends that the Appellate Bench should have admitted the appeal and that it has omitted to do so, the finding recorded by them are in excess of their jurisdiction. He requests that the matter be remitted back to that Court on this single ground, for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law after duly admitting it. He relies on two decisions of the Supreme Court A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1932, (Madhav v. Sugandha)and A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 218, (Umakanth v. Parshuram) He also draws on a Single Judge decision of the Karnatak High Court reported in A.I.R. 1970 Mysore 138 (Smt. Nillelawwa v. Smt. Chinanwa)