MOHIT GAJADHAR AHIR Vs. INDERBALI RANGAI AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by the original plaintiff against the appellate order of the Division Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The facts of the litigation which may be noted for the purpose of appreciating the present revision application are these :

(2.) Umer Mansion, Arthur Road, Jacob Circle, Bombay-11, is a property belonging to a trust of which original defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and present respondents Nos. 2 to 6 or 7 appeared to be the trustees. The plaintiffs case in the trial Court was that one Khodabhai was the original tenant of room No. 3 of these premises from the trustees. Khodabhai consented in writing that the tenancy be transferred in the name of the plaintiff and on the strength of that writing, the trustees not only acted upon it but actually accepted the plaintiff as a tenant of that room and issued rent bills in his name from the year 1960. In this manner as a lawful tenant of room No. 3 directly from the trustees the plaintiff is in occupation in his own right as fulfledged tenant. That occupation began in 1960 and is even continuing now.

(3.) Defendant No. 1, present respondent No. 1 called Inder Bali Rangai Ahir, is original defendant No. 6 in the present litigation. This defendant is playing the role, as has been described by the Appellate Court, as a rival tenant. For the convenience of reference, the plaintiff will be described as a tenant and Inder Bali as a rival tenant. According to the plaintiff, the rival tenant was merely staying with him as a licensee and had nothing to do with the premises. However, this rival tenant took into his head to claim tenancy and to challenge right, title and interest of the present plaintiff tenant. Hence he filed Suit No. 435/60 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for a declaration that he was the lawful sub-tenant of Khodabhai or after his demise, his son Hirubhai Khodabhai. He joined the present plaintiff as well as the trustees as party defendants. However, he withdrew that suit with liberty to file another on the same cause of action. Subsequently he filed Suit No. 2327/62 in the Court of Small Causes without joining Hirubhai, the legal heir and representative of the original tenant Khodabhai, for a declaration that the tenancy created by defendants Nos. 1 to 5, the trustees, in favour or the present plaintiff is not a valid one and that in law he continues to be the lawful sub-tenant of Hirubhai, and, therefore, a tenant of the trustees. In both these suits, viz. Suit No. 435/60 and 2327/62, the trustees as owners filed written statement or defence entirely supporting the present petitioner. In other words, they accepted the proposition that Khodabhai withdraw his tenancy and the present plaintiff was accepted as a direct tenant by the trustees. They, therefore, supported the claim of the plaintiff in regard to his title to the tenancy and his physical possession as against the claim of the rival tenant.