S H KARKHANIS Vs. LALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two write petitions by the licensee/deemed tenant and landlady, respectively are directed against the same judgment passed on November 13, 1986 by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes court Bombay. Hence this common judgment.

(2.) Does section 14(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ) protect form eviction a licensee who is a deemed tenant under section 15-A even when the licence to occupy the premises was created in his favour by a tenant thereof, and that too after eviction proceedings had been initiated against the latter by the landlord which ultimately culminated in a decree for eviction and possession ? In the affirmative is such protection absolute in the sense that it operates in all the cases? These are the main questions that these petitions give rise to. Mr. Abhyankar, the learned Counsel appearing for the licensee, answered the first question in the affirmative, adding, however, that in the event any of the grounds for eviction as contemplated in sections 12 and 13 of the Act are available against the licensee/deemed tenant, a decree for eviction may be passed against him. Mr. Rane the learned Counsel appearing for the landlady, naturally, held the opposite view and contended that a licensee in whose favour a licence was created by a tenant is not protected from eviction in case decree for possession is passed in favour of the landlord and against the tenant/licensor.

(3.) Before addressing myself to the above question and rival contentions, I however, think it expedient and proper to deal first with the petition filed by the landlady viz. Writ Petition No. 137 of 1987 as the issue involved in it is quite narrow, being restricted only to a challenge to the findings of the courts below that the petitioner Karkhanis is not a sub-tenant but a licensee.