SHAIKH MEHBOOB ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. AFJALKHAN AMIRKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 2nd May 1986 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil appeal No.281 of 1984. That appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13th February, 1984 passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.1052 of 1976. That suit was also filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession of the premises described in para 1 of the Plaint collectively known as Vakhar. The plaintiff also claimed a direction for taking of accounts and adjustment of accounts. The plaintiff also claimed a declaration that he is a tenant of the premises. The trial Court, however, found that as a result of the deed dated 10th October 1967 at Exh.110 entered into between the original plaintiff petitioner Mehboob and respondent No.1 Afjalkhan, the petitioner assigned all his interest in the suit property in favour of the respondent No.1 and therefore, he ceases to be the tenant of the suit premises. The Court therefore held that as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and respondent No.1, the suit is not maintainable under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the Appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged before me that the Courts below have not properly construed the terms of the deed entered into between the plaintiff and the respondent No.1 dated 10th October 1967. In the submission of the learned counsel, on proper construction of the deed, the Courts below ought to have held that a sub-tenancy of the suit premises was created by the plaintiff in favour of the respondent No.1.

(3.) IN the result therefore, petition fails and is dismissed, rule discharged with no order as to costs. Civil application No.4562 of 1992 in Writ petition No.611 of 1987 does not survive for consideration in view of the order passed in writ petition No.611 of 1987. Hence rejected.