370 per month on terms and companyditions printed on the back Of the rent bill form which were shown to and accepted by the first defendant.
In paragraphs 14 and 15 the plaintiffs formulate the grounds for ejectment, ,namely, 1 that the alleged subletting by the first ,defendant to the second defendant was wrongful, illegal and in breach of the terms of the tenancy and 2 that the plaintiffs required the premises reasonably and bona fide for the use and occupation of two of the beneficiaries.
3,317 10 8 for companypensation from November 1, 1947, till July 31, 1948, and thereafter at Rs.
The defendants companytested the suit on a variety of grounds, but the trial Court by its judgment dated October 18, 1950, rejected all the pleas and passed a decree directing both the defendants to vacate the flat by March 31, 1951, and awarding, only as against the first defendant, Rs.
The defendants are two in number, namely, the first defendant Mrs. Dinbai K. Lala to whom the said flat was let out by the plaintiffs on or about September 1, 1942, at Rs.
In paragraph 5 of the plaint is set out one of those terms, namely, that the tenant shall number assign, sublet or re let the premises without the previous written companysent of the landlords.
370 per mouth from November 1, 1947, till delivery of vacant possession.
1055/7943 of 1948.
After setting forth their title as owners of the Sunama Houses trustees under the will of Framroze D. B. Taraporewala the plaintiffs plead that the second floor flat was let out to first defendant on or about September 1, 1942, at Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Decree dated January 25, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Chagla C.J. in Revision Application No.
172 of 1952.
The plaintiffs prayed that both the defendants be ordered to vacate the premises and that both of them be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs companypensation for the use and occupation of the premises at Rs.
355 of 1950, arising out of Judgment and Decree dated December 18, 1950, of the Court of Small Causes in Suit No.
In paragraph 7 reference is made to the numberice given by the plaintiffs to the first defendant on October 17, 1946, to vacate the flat at the end of November, 1946, on the ground that the same was required reasonably and bonafide for the use of two of the beneficiaries under the will.
Then, after referring to an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to obtain a certificate under section 9 of the Act the plaintiffs refer to a letter dated November 16, 1947, written by the first defendant to the plaintiff8 intimating that she had from that day sublet the flat to the second defendant.
The plaintiffs are the trustees of the will of Framroze D. B. Taraporewala deceased and as such the owners of the Sunama House.
The second defendant has number companye up in appeal before us after having obtained special leave of this Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It arises out of a suit filed in the Bombay Small Causes Court under section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for ejectment from and companypensation at the rate of Rs.
370 per month from November 1, 1947, for the use and occupation of the second floor flat of Sunama House situate in Cumballa Hill, Bombay.
370 per month from August 4, 1948, till delivery of possession besides the companyts of the suit.
H. Lulla for the appellants.
370 per mouth and the second defendant a limited companypany to whom the first defendant had sublet the said flat as from November 16, 1947, at the same rent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed on January 25, 1952, in Civil Revision, Application No.
1, 2 and 3.
Besides the various pleas put forward before the trial Court, the defendants, before the Appellate Bench, put forward an additional plea, watch was number pleaded in their written statements, namely, that the Small Causes Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit in so far as it companycerned the second defendant.
1119 of 1951 from the Judgment and Decree dated August 10, 1951, of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Appeal No.
H. Daphtary Solicitor General for India B.B. Adhyarujina, with him for the respondents Nos.
The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissed the appeal with companyts.
December 10.
1119 of 1951.
The defendants preferred an appeal under section 29 of that Apt.
The second defendant thereafter moved the High Court in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was also dismissed with companyts.
