JOSEPHY SANTA VINCENT Vs. AMBICO INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed with a view to challenge the legality of a decree passed by a Judge of the Bombay Small Cause Court and confirmed by an Appellate Bench of that Court. The property in dispute consists of a godown at Ballard Estate in Bombay. The godown is a part of an extensive estate which belongs to the Bombay Port Trust and which has been leased by the Port Trust to the first respondents Messrs. Ambico Industries. The first respondents let out the godown to the second respondents Messrs. William Jacks and Company Limited. In January 1957 the petitioner Josephy Santa Vincent went into the possession of the godown under an agreement with the second respondents. On August 1, 1959 the second respondents surrendered their tenancy to the first respondents. In April 1960, the first respondents filed a suit against the second respondents in the Bombay Small Cause Court for possession of the godown. The petitioner was not made a party to that suit. An ex parte decree for possession was obtained in that suit by the first respondents in October 1960. When the ex parte decree was sought to be executed an obstruction was offered by the petitioner but the obstruction was ordered to be removed by the Court. The petitioner then filed a suit in the same Court for a declaration that he was the lawful sub-tenant of the second respondents and had become the tenant of the first respondents under Section 14 of the Bombay Rent Act on the determination of the second respondents' tenancy. After filing the suit, the petitioner obtained an order of interim stay against the execution of the ex parte decree. Due to some typing error in the stay order, however, the decree was executed and possession of the godown was obtained by the first respondents. Thereupon the petitioner got his plaint amended so as to add a prayer for restoration of possession of the godown.

(2.) THE suit was dismissed by the trial Judge on two grounds. The learned trial Judge held, in the first place, that assuming the premises to have been sub-let by the second respondents to the petitioner in January 1957, the sub-lease was not validated by sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Bombay Rent Act, that the premises cannot be held to have been lawfully sub-let to the petitioner, and that the petitioner cannot, therefore, be deemed to have become the tenant of the first respondents under Section 14 of the Act. The learned Judge observed in this connection that as the property belonged to the Bombay Port Trust the first respondents were the tenants of the godown, that the second respondents were the sub-tenants and that the petitioner could only claim to be tge sub-tenant of sub-tenants. Relying upon the decision in Balkrishna Sayanna, (1963) 65 Bom LR 149 the learned trial Judge held that the petitioner, being the sub-tenant of a sub-tenant, cannot claim the protection of sub-section (2) of Section 15. Secondly the learned Judge held that the premises had been sub-let to him in January 1957 by the second respondents. The learned Judge was of the view that the right of storing goods in the premises.

(3.) FROM this decree dismissing his suit the petitioner went in appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Bombay Small Cause Court. The appeal was summarily dismissed by the Appellate Bench. In its judgment the Appellate Bench proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner was a sub-tenant of the second respondant. Relying on the said decision in 65 Bom LR 149, the Appellate Bench held that a sub -tenant's sub-tenant was not protected by the Rent Act and the Trial Court was, therefore , justified in dismissing the petitioners suit. The Appellate Bench did not decide the question whether the peti tioner was a tenant or a licensee of the second respondents.