DEVJI KESHAVJI AND CO Vs. DAHIBAI BHAILAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 is the owner of the building known as Neela Bhuvan, M/s. Bindraban Jain and Sons was a tenant of a godown consisting of four galas on the ground floor. The tenant sub-let three galas out of them to respondent No. 2 and the remaining to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for ejectment against the tenant, M/s. Bindraban Jain and Sons being R. A. E. Suit No, 813/4237 of 1956. The petitioner on its own application was made a party to the suit. A Decree was passed against the original tenant on July 13, 1959 and the suit against the petitioner was dismissed and respondent No. 1 agreed to recognize the petitioner as direct tenant of the entire godown. The petitioner paid all arrears of rent to respondent No. 1 upto July 31. 1959 in respect of the entire godown, costs and Municipal taxes. Respondent No. 1 granted a lease for one year commencing from August 1, 1959. The date of the lease is December 4, 1959. The petitioner admits that respondent No. 2 became the direct tenant of respondent No. 1 under Section 14 of the Bombay Rent Act and the petitioner her contractual tenant.

(2.) AFTER obtaining the lease the petitioner demanded rent from respondent No. 2, but respondent No. 2 refused to pay the rent to the petitioner denying petitioner's right as landlord. The petitioner, therefore, terminated the tenancy of respondent No. 2 by letter dated March 10, 1960. The petitioner filed the ejectment suit No. 241/2220 of 1960 against respondent No. 2 for the three galas inter alia for non-payment of rent for more than six months. Res-pondent No. 2 by its sole surviving partner, respondent No. 3, filed a declaratory suit No. 291/2743 of 1960 against the petitioner and respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 was a tenant of respondent No. 1. that they are liable to pay rent to respondent No, 1 only and that the petitioner had no right. Respondent No. 2 also filed an application for fixing of the standard rent for the three galas in its possession the application being R. A. E. No. 487/sr of 1960. All the three matters were heard together,

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the suit of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, held that the petitioner was their landlord, fixed the standard rent at the contractual rent and rejected the petitioner's prayer for ejectment.