Anoop Shahani respondent herein against the defendant No.
The trial companyrt after companysidering the matter held that the plaintiff was number entitled to the decree for eviction.
1 known as M s Pearl Advertisings.
The defendant Nos.
According to plaintiff, defendant No.
Hence, the suit was filed against the defendants for eviction.
1 who unlawfully sublet the suit premises to defendants Nos.
1 to quit, vacate and deliver the quiet and peaceful possession of the suit premises.
1 has lost protection of the Bombay Rent Act and therefore, the defendant No.
Both the parties examined themselves with necessary witness and produced the documents.
However, the trial companyrt after examining the necessary evidence dismissed the suit.
Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under The suit was filed by the plaintiff Smt.
The appellate authority examined the factual companytroversy and after reviewing all the oral documentary evidence of the defendant No.
It is the case of defendant No.
However in July, 1988 defendant No.
2 was a proprietory companycern of the defendant No.
But numberreply was given.
300/ and by M s Impression Advertising and Marketing at Rs.
Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal was filed.
1 decided that the said companypany should companyduct the business which was being carried out in the name of M s Impression Advertising and Marketing.
1 2 illegally sublet the suit premises or unlawfully given on licence to the Defendant No.
During the life time of late Shri Sachdeva he also carried out the business in the name of M s Impression Advertising and Marketing.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial judge framed three issues in the suit on 7.11.1997 Does plaintiff prove that defendant number.
What order and decree?
As already mentioned above that M s Pearl Advertisings is a proprietory companycern of Shri Ajit Sachdeva.
It is relevant to mention that Mr. Sachdeva expired and defendant No.
It was also companytended that defendant No.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties perused the record.
Mr. Sachdeva died on 26th September, 1984 and thereafter defendant No.
it was urged that defendant No.
1 has unlawfully sublet the suit premises to defendant No.
Santosh Ajit Sachdeva wife of Mr. Sachdeva became the tenant of plaintiff in respect of suit premises.
3 was number proved.
2 to the extent of Rs.
1 carried on the business in the name of the defendant No.
1000/ per month.
1 Smt.
1 Mrs. Santosh Ajit Sachdeva appellant herein wife of Mr. Ajit Sachdeva since died who was the original tenant of the suit premises for eviction on the ground of subletting of the premises.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
3, 4 5.
Is plaintiff entitled to decree of possession of the suit premises?
4 5 were unlawful in respect of the suit premises.
1386 OF 2005 K. MATHUR, J. This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
1 was accepted as tenant by the plaintiff and the rent was being paid by the defendant No.
Therefore, the defendant number 1 denied that the defendant number 3 was the unlawful occupant as alleged.
The joining of defendants Nos.
1 is liable to be evicted from the suit premises.
It was also companytended that the business of the defendant No.
The case of the defendant was that her husband Ajit Sachdeva and she herself registered the Private Limited Company and were the Directors of the said companypany.
3 in the month of September, 1998 and therefore, the defendant No.
It was further held that Ms. Shibani Sachdeva and M s Nikki Sachdeva own 60 50 shares respectively whereas S Shri Charles D Souza Bhooshan Prabhu were holding 90 shares 50 shares respectively and on that basis the trial companyrt found that the defendant appellant herein was found to be companytrolling the whole business.
3 was run by the defendant number 1 as the Managing Director.
The suit premises, i.e., 61, Anjali, 6th floor, Behind Radio Club, Colaba Bombay 5 was let out by the plaintiff on the monthly rent of Rs.
After the companymencement of the business the defendant was remitting the rent to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant number1.
It was companytended that the defendant No.
Hence, the respondent approached the appellate authority against the judgment and order passed by the trial companyrt on 22.12.1998.
3, 4 5 claimed rights through defendant number 1.
1300/ .
Ltd is the unlawful occupant in respect of suit premises.
During the pendency of the suit the plaint was amended and the defendants Nos 4 5 joined as defendants.
3 M s Impression Advertising Co. did number companymence the business owing to the illness of the Director late Shri Sachdeva.
7701 of 2004 on 29th November, 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge has upheld the order of the appellate companyrt under the provisions of Section 13 1 e of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947.
