HARILAL B DRESSWALA Vs. DAYASINGH JOGINDARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 17.4.1984 passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No.265/1973. That appeal was filed by the present respondent No.1 Dayasing challenging the order dated 24.4.1972 passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay, in R.A.D. Suit No.7760/1965. That suit was filed by the respondent No.1 claiming a declaration in the following terms :

(2.) Now, the admitted facts are that the petitioners are the owners of the suit premises, namely, Godown 4-6, Tel Galli, Vithalwadi, Bombay and that respondent No.2 Bawa Glass Co. was the tenant of the suit premises. In the year 1960, the petitioners filed a suit for a decree of eviction against the tenant Bawa Glass Co. on the ground that the tenant Bawa Glass Co. is not ready and willing to pay the rent. To this suit, admittedly, respondent No.1 Dayasing was not joined as a defendant. In the suit there was also an allegation that the tenant Bawa Glass Co. had sublet the premises and decree was sought on that ground also. However, a finding was recorded by the Court that the premises have been lawfully sublet by the tenant to one Gurudatt Asanand. There is some controversy between the parties whether this Gurudatt Asanand and the present respondent No.1 Dayasing are one and the same. However, the fact that is material for the present petition is that a decree of eviction was denied to the landlord on the ground that the tenant had illegality sublet the suit premises. When the decree was put to execution, there was an objection raised to the execution. Ultimately, the present suit came to be filed by the respondent No.1 claiming a declaration that he is the tenant of the suit premises and that the decree passed in the earlier suit does not bind him. The trial court, however, recorded a finding against the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court, however, reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and recorded findings in favour of the respondent No.1 who had filed an appeal before the appellate Court, and decreed the suit.

(3.) For the purpose of deciding this petition, it is section 15 and section 14 of the Bombay Rent Act which are relevant. Both the sections have undergone amendments during the pendency of this petition and these amendments, in my opinion, materially alter the controversy between the parties. Now, it is a finding of fact, and which is not seriously disputed before me, that the suit premises were sublet by the original tenant Bawa Glass Co. to respondent No.1 Dayasing. However, the controversy between the parties was whether the subletting took place before 21st May 1959 or after 21st May 1959. There is also a finding of fact recorded, which again is not seriously disputed before me, that the subletting in favour of respondent No.1 took place before 31st July 1963, the date on which the decree in the earlier suit filed by the landlord was passed. It is also not in dispute before me that on 1.2.1973 respondent No.1 was in possession of the suit premises. Now, in this background, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14 and sub-section (2) of section 15 are to be looked into. Sub-section (1) of section 14 reads as under :