(1.) According to the petitioners by an agreement of 28th Nov., 1969 executed with Mrs. Gopibai Gopaldas they took on leave and licence basis Flat No. 54A on the 5th Floor of the building "Mira-Mar" at Napean Sea Road, Mumbai. One Shri Ravindra Sahai was in the employment of Petitioner No. 2 and he was allowed to occupy the said flat. It is the petitioners case that considering the amendment to the Bombay Rent Act giving protection to licensees they became protected tenants. Petitioner No. 1 from 1995 onwards was paying the rent/compensation of the flat to the landlady. Their employee Ravindra Sahai resigned from the employment on 5th March, 1995. Though the employee was called upon to vacate the flat he chose not to vacate. The petitioners, therefore, filed R.A.E. and E. Suit No. 80/490 of 1976 against Ravindra Sahai in the Court of Small Causes for recovery of possession of the flat along with arrears of compensation from 1st May, 1975 till the date of filing of the suit. Ravindra Sahai on 3rd Aug., 1976 filed written statement and claimed ownership of the suit premises. The petitioners then have averred that the petitioner No. 1 was incorporated to takeover the entire assets and liabilities of the petitioner No. 2. Issues were framed by the Court of Small Causes. One of the issues was whether Ravindra Sahai was the owner of the premises and whether he had purchased the flat from the original landlady and whether he was liable to handover possession of the plaintiffs. According to the petitioners the suit was decreed exparte against Ravindra Sahai on 4th March, 1991.
(2.) It is the petitioners case that an advertisement appeared in the Times of India on 24th July, 1991 putting up for sale various properties which included the flat which was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Small Causes Court. The petitioners addressed an advocate s letter dt. 21st Aug., 1991 pointing out as to how the advertisement could be given when there was ad interim order of injunction issued by the Small Causes Court at Bombay and which was operative. They received a reply on 29th Aug., 1991 stating that at the time of auction on 22nd Aug., 1991 an announcement was made indicating to all the parties who attended the auction that the petitioner No. 2 has moved the Small Causes Court at Bombay praying for restoration of their tenancy and the Court of Small Causes at Bombay has decreed the said suit in favour of the petitioner No. 2.
(3.) Inspite of the order of 13th Dec., 1991 the respondents did not handover possession of the suit premises to the petitioners, but instead on 28th Oct., 1991 purported to handover the possession of the flat to the auction purchaser. On 23rd Jan., 1991 the Court of Small Causes passed an order to break open the lock and put the petitioners in possession. Accordingly the petitioners were put in possession. The auction purchaser according to the petitioners broke open the lock of the flat illegally, consequent to which a criminal complaint came to be filed. The auction purchaser one Mr. Shah filed a Writ Petn. No. 1870 of 1992 before this Court. On 6th Sept., 1992 an order came to be passed by this Court setting aside the auction sale held on 28th Oct., 1991 as it was held in defiance of the prohibitory order passed by the Small Causes Court and a direction was issued to refund to the auction purchaser the purchase price with interest at 18 per cent per annum from 26th Nov., 1991. According to the petitioners the society accepted the petitioners possession and the society has been accepting the maintenance charges and other outgoings.