DATTATRAY PURUSHOTTAM BHAVE Vs. JAYANT SITARAM JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dtd.21/7/84 passed by the District Judge, Thane in Civil Appeal No.79/81. That appeal was filed by the Respondents challenging the Judgment and order dtd.12/11/80 passed by the II Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Division, Thane in Civil Suit No.750/74. That Civil Suit was filed by the petitioner claiming that he is the owner of building known as Indira Sadan, situated at Kharkar Ali, Thane, and that, 2 rooms block on the 2nd floor of this building was leased out to Respondent No.1 in the year 1970. The landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant on 4 grounds i.e.

(2.) THE learned Counsel Shri Apte, for the petitioner urged before me that the Appellate Court has set aside the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the ground that

(3.) SO far as ground of subletting is concerned, the Appellate Court has also found that since 1974, Respondent No.2 is residing in the suit premises. However, according to the Appellate Court, he is residing in the premises as a licensee. However, perusal of the Judgment of the Appellate Court does not show as to why the Appellate Court has found that occupation of the suit premises by the Respondent No.2 is as a licensee and not as a tenant because as is found above, the Respondent No.1 is no longer residing in the suit premises, and that goes to show that the Respondent No.2 is occupying premises exclusively and therefore, he is a sub-tenant. As I have found that the decree of eviction is passed against the Respondents by the Trial Court on the ground of securing suitable accommodation could not have been disturbed by the Appellate Court, it is not necessary to go into the details of the ground of sub-tenancy.