E LESLIE AND CO Vs. VAIVIDHYA PRINT CRAFTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs admittedly licensed their premises to the defendants under the Leave and Licence Agreement dated 15. 1. 1971, Exhibit-B. The Agreement is for a period of three years. It would expire by efflux of time on 14. 1. 1974. It is the Plaintiffs' contention that they orally terminated the Licence Agreement in December 1972 in the presence of two persons in Defendant no. 1-Firm viz. one Dattatraya Chintaman Khandkar and Prabhakar Shivshankar Bandodkar. No notice of termination is sent to the Defendants. The Defendants have denied the termination. It is the Defendants' contention that the Defendants continued to be the licensees under the Agreement, Exhibit-B dated 15. 1. 1971 for a period of three years which was the term of the licence have continued in possession thereafter. It is their contention that the case of termination of licence made out by the Plaintiffs is false, dishonest and made only with a view to claim possession from the Defendants after the Defendants became the sub-tenants of the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises upon the amendment to the Bombay (Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 ("bombay Rent Act") under Section 15-A thereof. It is the Defendants' case that the Defendants paid compensation in respect of the suit premises in january 1973 and thereafter. Had the Plaintiffs terminated the licence in December 1972, they would not have accepted the compensation. It is the plaintiffs' case that the amount accepted from the defendants is not by way of compensation but by way of damages for wrongful occupation of the suit premises after the licence was terminated. There is nothing in writing to show that fact.

(2.) AFTER the Defendants secured protection under the bombay Rent Act, 1947 as licensees/sub-tenants in possession of the premises on 1. 2. 1973, the defendants, by their Notice dated 29. 8. 2003 to the plaintiffs sent by Registered Post, claimed the protection by declaration of the Defendants as tenants and claimed to pay the rent rateably to the Plaintiffs in proportion to the amount paid by the Plaintiffs to the landlord. The Notice sent by the Defendants on 29. 8. 1973 is Exhibit-5.

(3.) IN reply to that notice, the Plaintiffs' Attorneys claimed the termination of the licence orally made in the presence of the aforesaid two persons. The Plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession of the suit premises from the Defendants as trespassers thereon. It is the plaintiffs' case that the Defendants were to pay the plaintiffs' licence fees initially at the rate of Rs. 1000/ per month for the first one and half years and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 1500/ -per month for the remainder of two and half years of the term of the licence. The Defendants only paid the licence fees at the rate of Rs. 1000/ -per month continuously and hence, fell in arrears. It was, therefore, that the plaintiffs terminated the licence.