DINOO F Vs. DOLLY JAHANGIR RANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the defendant paying guest", challenges the validity of the decree for possession made by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Appeal No. 201 of 1983, reversing the decree of Single Judge of that Court in Suit No. L.E. & C 163/213 of 1978. The Appellate Bench held that the petitioner is a paying guest" and not a licensee", protected by section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Bombay Rent Act").

(2.) The question in this petition is whether the petitioner, who occupies a room and a kitchen in the flat held by the respondent as a tenant, is a paying guest", as defined in section 5(6-A) of the Bombay Rent Act, or is a licensee as defined in section 5(4-A) of the Act. The petitioner hereafter shall be referred to as the defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff.

(3.) There is on the third floor of Ali Building, Wadia Street, Bombay 400 034, a flat held by the plaintiff as a tenant. As one comes on the landing of the stair-case, there is the entrance to the flat. The door at entrance leads into the 24 long and 41 wide passage. On the right hand side, there is a kitchen, the entrance to which is through a door opening .In the passage. Adjoining this kitchen is a room. The entrance to this room is also through another door from the passage. The kitchen and the rooms are connected by a door in the wall between them. The kitchen and the room open into the passage through different doors. On, the left hand side, there is a large hall of the dimensions of 26.26 x 13. Next to this hall, along the passage, there is a room admeasuring 13.3 x 12.6. This room opens into the passage. As one enters the room , admeasuring 13.3 x 12.6, one finds that this room is connected to another room admeasuring 12.9 x 14 running parallel to the hall. These two rooms have separate doors which open into the hall. At the end of the passage, there is a gallery admeasuring 28.6 x 3.6. The plaintiff is in possession of the large hall, two rooms and the gallery described above. These rooms in occupation of the plaintiff are separated by the passage beyond which on the right hand side there is the kitchen and the room occupied by the defendant. On 6th October, 1962, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement in writing, which is in the form of a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff. It embodies the terms of the contract entered into by the parties. The plaintiff has confirmed these terms on the same day in writing by an endorsement below this letter. This agreement was for a period of eleven months, but was extended from time to time until 1974 by separate agreements. The terms of the agreement, briefly stated, are as under :-