DAYABHAI GOVINDJI RAJPUT Vs. ISHWARLAL RAMDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 12.12.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Revision Application No.49 of 1997. That revision was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7.2.1997 passed by the Single Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay. In R.A.E. & R Suit No.150/340 of 1994. That civil suit has been filed by the respondent claiming decree of eviction against the petitioner in relation to the suit premises. The admitted position appears to be that the plaintiff had created a licence of the suit shop in favour of the petitioner before 1.2.1973. It appears that the respondent filed a suit being suit No.334/321 of 1981 for an order of eviction against the petitioner before the Small Causes Court on the ground that he is a licensee. The Court, however, found that as a licensee, the petitioner was on the suit premises on 1.2.73 and because of the provisions of Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act, he was become deemed tenant of the suit shop and therefore, the order of eviction cannot be passed against the petitioner as he is no more a license but a deemed tenant. The present suit has been filed by the respondent, obviously, for a decree of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that he is tenant. The preliminary objection that was raised about maintainability of the suit was that the respondent cannot maintain the suit because he is not a landlord within the meaning of the Act. For that purpose reliance was placed on the provisions of Section 15-A and 14(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that because of the operation of section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act, the petitioner became a deemed tenant and as the court refused to grant a decree of eviction against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent in terms of provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 14 of the Act, the interest of the respondent in the suit premises was determined and therefore, the petitioner has become a direct tenant of the original landlord For this proposition, he relied on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of :- (i) Hiralal Vallabhram V/s. Sheth Kastrubhai Lalbhai and others, (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1853) and (ii) Chandavarkar Sita Ratana Rao V/s. Ashalata S.Guram ((1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 447).

(2.) PERUSAL of the provisions of Section 15-A of the Act, shows that if a person is granted licence of the premises and if he continues to be on the premises as licensee on 1.2.1973 he is deemed to have become tenant of the landlord. It is an admitted position that the licence of the suit premises was granted in favour of the petitioner by respondent. Therefore, it becomes necessary to find out what is the definition of the term "landlord". Perusal of the provision of sub-section 3 of section 5 of the Bombay Rent Act shows that the landlord means any person who is for the time being, receiving or entitled to receive rent. As the petitioner was licensee of the respondent, it is obvious that it is the respondent who was entitled to receive the rent from the petitioner. Therefore, even after becoming deemed tenant of the suit premises under section 15-A, it is the respondent who will be the landlord of the petitioner. In so far as the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 14 are concerned they deal with the situation where the interest of the original tenant is determined, then his licensee who has now become a deemed tenant by a statutory fiction, becomes a direct tenant of the original landlord. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is nobodies case that the interest of the respondent as a tenant of the premises has been brought to end either by an act of the parties or by operation of the statute and therefore, in so far as the petitioner is concerned it is the respondent, who is landlord of the petitioner. Perusal of the judgment of the Supreme court in Hiralal Vallabhram's case, referred to above, shows that the Supreme Court has also taken the same view. The Supreme court has observed:-

(3.) THIS petition has, therefore, no merit and it is rejected accordingly.