KAMALAKANT SADASHIV SATPUTE Vs. MADHAV DHONDO ALWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed in proceedings arising under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 -- hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act'.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition, which are not in dispute, are briefly these:-- One Madhav Dhondo Alwani--respondent No. 1 is the owner of the disputed property. The property bearing City Survey No. 391 at Narayan Peth, Pune, consists of a temporary shed admeasuring 30 x 10 ft. constructed by the said Alwani and an adjoining site admeasuring 57'-6" x 10' and the entire area together with the temporary shed is described in the Rent Note (Ex. 24) as admeasuring about 1000 sq. ft. On 16th May 1945, Bhagwan Soman, the 1st defendant executed a registered rent note in respect of this property in favour of Alwani for a period of 5 years from 1st June, 1945 at the agreed rent of Rs.18 per month. The material conditions of the lease were that Soman was to erect a temporary shed on the open site for putting up his printing press and he had stipulated to remove the said shed after the expiry of the lease. Accordingly Soman constructed a shed and started running his printing press. He sold that press and assigned the shed constructed by him on the open site and the remaining site even the original temporary shed constructed by the Landlord to the petitioner -- the second defendant, in May 1969 for Rs.17,000. That is why the landlord by his notice (Ex. 25) dated 8th May, 1972, terminated the tenancy of the 1st defendant on the ground that the 1st defendant had unlawfully sublet the premises to the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant gave in a reply notice (Ex. 27) stating that it was not a sublease in favour of the 2nd defendant. That is why the plaintiff Alwani filed the suit giving rise to this petition being Civil Suit No. 25M of 1972 for eviction of the defendants on August 21, 1972.

(3.) The suit was resisted by both the defendants. By their joint written statement, they contended that there was no subletting in favour of the 2nd defendant and that he was in possession of the same as he had purchased the printing press which was housed in a shed.