PRITHDAYAL CHETANDAS Vs. JAMNADAS GHANSHAMDAS TULIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions arise out of the decree for eviction passed by the Court of Small Causes in the suit for eviction filed by the landlord in these petitions (who is the common respondent in both these petitions ). Writ Petition No. 3417 of 1987 is filed by Original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5, who are admittedly the heirs of the original tenant in respect of the suit premises in addition to original defendant No. 4. Though decree for eviction has been passed also against Original Defendant No. 4, viz. Jairamdas Chetandas, he does not figure either as petitioner or respondent in this writ petition. This fact has a bearing upon the very maintainability of this writ petition. Writ Petition No. 3313 of 1987 is filed by original defendant No. 6 who claimed and claims to be a sub tenant in respect of the suit premises as from 1-4-1967. His claim to valid sub-tenancy may perhaps have some kind of legitimacy after the advent of Maharashtra Act No. 18 of 1987, which came into force as on 1st October, 1987. But as to how he could claim a valid sub-tenancy at the time of the suit, with effect from 1-4-1967, is a closely guarded secret. I will have occasion to comment upon this position while examining the claim of the said petitioner in the said petition.

(2.) VERY interesting question of quite some importance, relating---

(3.) SINCE both the writ petitions arise out of the suit, both of them are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the writ petitions shall be referred to with reference to their position in the array of parties in the trial Court. As stated above, the respondent is common in both the petitions. He is the owner and, as such, the landlord in respect of the suit premises which are in a building situate at Bhulabhai Desai Road, one of the most prestigious localities in the City of Bombay. There is no dispute that original defendants Nos. 1 to 5 had been the tenants in respect of the suit premises at all the relevant times. Defendant No. 6 was impleaded as a party defendant in the suit at a later stage, at the instance of the plaintiff, the contention of the plaintiff being that he was inducted on a part of the premises, viz. the Garage, by defendants Nos. 1 to 5, as a sub-tenant. As will presently pointed out, he has filed a written statement and has denied that he was an unlawful sub-tenant. However, as will be presently pointed out, he has kept an eloquent mum on the question as to how his sub-tenancy could be lawful if, on his own showing, it came into being for the first time in April 1967, at which time sub-tenancy by a tenant without the consent of the landlord was quite unlawful. However, at the hearing of these petitions he based his claim of lawful sub-tenancy only upon the provisions of Maharashtra Act No. 18 of 1987 which came into force on 1-10-1987.