LAWS(BOM)-2008-12-26

JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE Vs. RANGUBAI RAMCHANDRA JAGDALE

Decided On December 03, 2008
SHRI JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE Appellant
V/S
SOU. RANGUBAI RAMCHANDRA JAGDALE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a original Defendant-Tenant, has challenged the impugned order of Court below whereby, the landlord/Respondents' case of sub-tenancy under section 13(l)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, "the Bombay Rent Act") is confirmed and thereby allowed the landlords' case of eviction on that ground only.

(2.) The lease premises is situated at C.T.S. No. 1873, Bhamburda, Pune, consists of 2 blocks (for short, "the suit premises"). The suit premises were let out for running a hotel, As averred, accepted by the Court below that the petitioner's have transferred the said property in favour of one Krishna Shetty without permission and consent. It is contended specifically that the Petitioners never parted with the possession of the property. He is very much there and now he is doing business exclusively. Though there is material to show that he had assigned his business in favour of one Krishna Shetty, a deed of partnership Exhibit 51 and agreement whereby it was accepted that Krishna Shetty was his partner in the business of hotel. That was a partnership between the Defendant, his brother and the third person K.B. Shetty.

(3.) Under proviso to section 15(1), of the Bombay Rent Act, it is permissible for the statutory tenant to transfer his tenancy right, as a going concern, even though the agreement prevented such transfer without previous consent of the landlord. Admittedly, the person running business goodwill and stock in trade had been assigned as permissible under the said provisions. As observed and held in (Swastik Rubber Products Ltd. & anr. Vs. Vasantrao Mahadeo Dhatingan), 2005(1) Bom.C.R. 327 by the Division Bench of this Court, that such assignment of premises whether contract contains prohibition or without consent of landlord, is permissible. Therefore, the assignment of leasehold premises by the Defendants was not sub letting. This Judgment is clearly cover the case of the Petitioners also.