TAHILRAM D.LALWANI Vs. RAMCHANDRA CHUHARMAL AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 16.8.1984 passed by the 7th Extra Assistant Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.774 of 1981. That appeal was filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1981 passed by the 4th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes at Pune in civil suit no.1412 of 1977. That civil suit was filed by the respondent claiming therein that he is the landlord of the suit premises i.e. shop on the southern side of the house bearing no.511 situate at Vallabhai Patel Road, Pune. The land-lord sought decree of eviction against the defendant no.1 tenant on the ground that he is a defaulter in payment of rent. The decree was also sought on the ground that the defendant no.1 Tahilram has unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to Shri Chuharam defendant no.2. and defendant no.3 Krishna.

(2.) THE trial court recorded a finding in favour of the landlord on account of unlawful sub-letting and decreed the suit directing the tenant and sub tenants to vacate the suit premises. In appeal filed by the sub tenants the appeal court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) THUS it is clear that there is clear finding by the appeal court that the sub-tenancy was created by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3 in the year 1967-68. Now accepting the findings recorded by the courts below as correct in my opinion in view of the amendment made to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act, the decree of eviction passed against the petitioners cannot be sustained. By amending sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act, the sub-tenancy created unlawfully in favour of the persons before 1.2.1973 have been regularized provided the sub-tenants were on the suit premises on 1.2.1973. In this view of the matter therefore though the findings recorded by the courts below are not disturbed the decree of eviction passed against the petitioners cannot be sustained.