MADHUSUDAN A MAHALE Vs. P M GIDH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question of law which has been argued in this petition on behalf of the petitioner, who was the original licensee of the premises in question, is whether the suit filed by his licensors in respect of the premises of which respondent No. 1 was alone the tenant and whose tenancy was already terminated by the landlord was not maintainable against him in view of the provisions of Section 15-A read with Section 14 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Act").

(2.) The facts out of which this pe'i-tion arises are not in dispute. The subject-matter of the dispute is a room of which respondent No. 1 is the tenant. The owner of the premises is not a party to any of these proceedings. The petitioner was admittedly allowed to occupy the room on leave and licence basis by an agreement dated 31st July 1969 which was in the name of the wife of respondent No. 1 who is also respondent No. 2 plaintiff No. 2. From time to time this agreement came to be extended and was renewed upto 30th April 1972, but admittedly even thereafter the petitioner continued to occupy the premises. Plaintiff No. 1 tenant who had shifted to Government accommodation, however, was due to retire on 31st August 1975 from Government employment and he, therefore, called upon the defendant to vacate the premises on 31st August 1975 by a letter dated 24th July 1975. The petitioner having failed to vacate the premises, respondent No. 1 plaintiff No. 1 filed an ejectment application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. In those proceedings the petitioner took a defence that his licence was subsisting on 1st February 1973 and he was, therefore, entitled to the protection under the Rent Act. That application filed by plaintiff No. 1 came to be rejected. The plaintiff treated the petitioner as a tenant and served a fresh notice calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises on 26th April 1976 on the ground that the plaintiffs needed the premises for his personal occupation. The petitioner having - failed to vacate the premises, a suit for eviction came to be filed against him by both the respondents.

(3.) Apart from the challenge to the bona fide requirement of plaintiff No. 1, the maintainability of the suit was itself challenged. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The notice was held to be valid; the suit was held to be maintainable; the requirement of plaintiff No. 1 was held to be proved and on the issue of hardship, the trial Court found that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if a decree for eviction was refused. It was found that the defendant was not keeping good health and even according to him, he had been maintained by his son Anil who was staying with him and the trial Court took the view that the defendant could reside with his other son who was at Dombivali. It was urged before the trial Court that the landlord of the premises, that is, the owner of the premises had himself terminated the tenancy of plaintiff No. 1 and therefore, the present plaintiffs had no right or interest left in the premises which would enable him to file a suit for eviction against the petitioner. This contention was negatived by the trial Court. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appeal Bench of the Small Cause Court at Bombay. The Appeal Bench confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. This petition is now filed by the petitioner challenging the decree for eviction.