COMART LITHOGRAPHERS LTD Vs. RAVI R JASRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the landlord challenging the orders of both the Courts below. The trial Court had partly decreed the suit filed by the landlord for arrears of rent and possession. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the suit. The facts giving rise to the controversy are that the petitioners are the owners of a block, being block no.4 on the 3rd floor of the North Wing of a factory/office building known as "Sane Guruji Premises". The petitioner is a member of "The Sane Guruji Co-operative Society Ltd." situated at 386, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Bombay 400 025. The respondents are the tenants of the suit premises. The parties entered into an agreement which was styled as "An Agreement of Leave and Licence", dated 25th February, 1972. Along with the agreement there is a sketch plan signed by both the parties on 14.4.1972 showing the premises given on leave and licence. On 22nd July, 1976 the landlord-petitioner issued a notice to the respondents calling upon the respondents to make payment of the arrears of rent, licence fees and water charges. It was stated that on failure of the respondents to make payment of the amount claimed in the notice, proceedings for ejectment would be initiated.

(2.) ON 10th of September 1976, the respondents filed Civil Suit, being no.4509/76 (A Rent Act Declaratory Suit ) in the Small Causes Court, Bombay. The principle relief that was claimed by the respondent was a declaration that they are 'deemed tenants' and/or protected licensees of the petitioner in respect of block no.4 on the 3rd floor of the North Wing of the factory/office building together with the Sanitary block consisting two W.Cs., three urinals, one wash basin and one water tap. It further appears that the petitioner filed Civil Suit on 27th September, 1976 against the respondents claiming a decree for possession in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. A claim for arrears of rent was also made. On 14th January, 1983 the Civil Suit filed by the tenants,being suit no.4509/76 came to be disposed of on the basis of the consent terms. The suit was decreed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of para 13 of the plaint, but the decree was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties, in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.1142/5979 of 1976, filed by the petitioners. It appears that the reals controversy between the parties was whether the Sanitary Block was given to the respondents as licensees/tenants or they were merely permitted to use it as a facility. The trial Court decided the suit by its judgment dated 29th October, 1984. The Trial Court passed a decree in favour of the petitioners-landlord for arrears of rent. However, rejected their prayer for a decree of possession in their favour. Against this judgment of the trial Court two appeals were filed. The Plaintiff-petitioners preferred an Appeal No.798/1984 challenging the order of the trial Court, rejecting its prayer for a decree of possession and also for other reliefs. The respondents-tenants also feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court in as much as the trial Court refused to fix the standard rent, preferred the Appeal No.816 of 1984. These two appeals came to be decided by the Appellate Court by its judgment dated 6th of March, 1987. The Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner and partly allowed the appeal filed by the tenants. The result was that the suit filed by the landlord was dismissed in its entirety. It is this common judgment of the Courts below which is impugned in this petition.

(3.) SHRI Abhyankar, the learned counsel for the tenants, on the other hand urged that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court that the toilet block formed a part of the premises leased out to the tenant, is based on the material on the record and therefore, that finding cannot be disturbed. In the submission of Shri Abhyankar, as the toilet block formed a part of the premises leased out to the tenant and as there was no reference to the toilet block in the suit notice, the Appellate Court was perfectly justified in finding that the suit was defective in as much as it was based on a notice, which related only to a part of the premises.