YOGENDRAKUMAR LAXMINARAYAN ZAVERI Vs. K T MASRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitionerslandlords are before the Court in this proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the dismissal of their eviction suit against the respondentstenants, by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay as confirmed by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, by the impugned judgments dated 22nd February, 1990 and 25th October, 1996 respectively. The prayer of the petitioners is interalia for setting aside the judgments of both the courts and that the eviction suit (RAE & R Suit No. 1461/4787 of 1983) filed by the petitioners be decreed.

(2.) In brief, the facts can be summarized thus. The suit premises, of which the petitioners are the landlords, consists of three rooms bearing Nos. 26, 27 and 28 on first floor of the building known as "Javeri Building", situated at K.M. Zaveri Road, Mumbai. Respondent no.1 is the tenant of the suit premises at the monthly rent of Rs.179.44 ps. and was using the suit premises for conducting a pathology clinic known as "Masrani Clinic". Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were inducted into the premises by respondent no.1 who were using the suit premises in conducting the clinic.

(3.) The father of the present petitioners, on 5th October, 1973, had initially filed an Ejectment Suit No. 1619/5653 of 1973 against Respondent no.1 on the grounds of breach of written terms and conditions of tenancy dated 12th March, 1969 and unlawful subletting, and/or inducting respondent no.2 in the suit premises on leave and licence. Further during the pendency of said ejectment suit, respondent no.1 inducted respondent no.3 in the suit premises. This suit of the landlords came to be compromised between the parties in terms of consent terms dated 17th June, 1978. The basis of this compromise was a writing dated 17th June, 1978 executed by respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioners fatherlandlord, which is referred by the parties as a tenancy agreement/rent note or a kabuliatnama. The contents of this letter are quite relevant and have a bearing on the present dispute which reads thus :