5 has been described as a licensee and reference has also been made to the letter of the advocate of respondent No.
Shri Nariman has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram and Kiran Singh and Ors.
5 agreed to pay by way of companypensation for use and occupation a sum of Rs.
5 and 6 have the right to occupy premises lawfully and they are in lawful possession of the same and that they are protected licensees and the order passed on the eviction application in which they were number impleadcd as parties is number binding on them.
The Appellate Bench further found that the said licence was companytinued after the death of Bhatena and the same was number revoked at any time and it was subsisting on February 1, 1973 and, therefore, respondents Nos.
In the said suit, respondent No.
Respondents No.
It appears that in 1973 Respondent No.
Thereupon, the appellants took out an obstruction numberice to remove respondents Nos.
5 and his wife, respondent No.
It was claimed that respondents Nos.
A reference to the same has also been made in the judgment of the Appellate Bench.
1 to 4 and it was decreed ex parte against them on March 2, 1979.
l had addressed a letter dated July 25, 1972 wherein respondent No.
The appellants in the appeal arising out of SLP No.
Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Bombay High Court dismissing their writ petition, the appellants have moved this Court.
The learned Judge was, however, of the view that since the order passed on the eviction application was a nullity, it was open to respondents Nos.
In that view of the matter, the Appellate Bench upheld the order of the Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bombay discharging the obstruction numberice and they dismissed the appeal of the appellants.
It was held that the eviction application filed by the appellants under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was number maintainable and the order passed on the said application was a nullity having been passed by a companyrt having numberjurisdiction.
10,000/ each at an interval of two months and the first of such instalments had to be paid within two weeks from the date of the said order and the second after the interval of two months from such date and they were further directed to pay companypensation at the rate of Rs.325/ per month for the period companymencing from January 1, 1991 within February 15, 1991 and will go on depositing the same thereafter every month within 15th of each succeeding month.
5 had also filed a declaratory suit No.
5 and 6 raised an objection that they have a right to occupy the premises and they refused to hand over the possession.
88/E of 1972 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 against respondents No.
1 to 4 did number, however, defend the proceedings and the said proceedings were decided ex parte against them by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay vide order dated July 14, 1978 whereby respondents Nos.
Respondents Nos.
In the said plaint, it is stated that after the death of Bhatena, the original tenant, respondent No.
As regards the right of respondents Nos.
16512/ 90, an interim order was passed by this Court on January 15, 1991 directing respondents Nos.
He also deposited a sum of Rs.
XVII of 1973, which came into force with effect from February 1, 1973.
The Bombay High Court has upheld the findings of the companyrts below that the order dated July 14, 1978 passed on the eviction application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was a nullity and on that view the writ petition filed by the landlords was dismissed.
1 to 4 were liable to deliver the vacant possession of the premises and it was prayed that defendants be ordered to vacate the premises.
The appellants filed an appeal against the said order which was decided by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay by order dated November 29, 1983.
It cannot, therefore, be said that there was numbermaterial on the basis of which it companyld be held that the licence in favour of respondents Nos.
In addition, there is a letter dated November 21, 1971 addressed by respondent No.
5 to 6 were number imploded as parties in those proceedings.
5 was subsisting on February 1, 1973.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Bench, the appellants filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by the High Court by judgment dated October 5, 1990.
5 to Bhatena wherein it has been stated that the agreement would start from October 12, 1971 and would stand automatically determined on September 11, 1972, the High Court has held that the licence expired on September 11, 1972 by efflux of time.
5 and 6 by Bhatena was perfectly legal.
5 and 6 was subsisting on February 1, 1973.
The Appellate Bench held that the licence was companytinued by the legal heirs of Bhatena after his death and the same was number revoked at any time and it was subsisting on February 1, 1973.
By the said amending Act, Section 15A was inserted whereby it was provided that where any person is in occupation of any premises or any part thereof as a licensee on February 1, 1973, he shall be deemed to have become for the purposes of the Bombay Rent Act the tenant of the landlord in respect of the premises or part thereof in his occupation.
In the said proceedings, the appellants submitted that respondents Nos.
1 to 4 filed their written statement wherein it was claimed that they have inherited the tenancy and that they were an titled to companytinue in possession of the premises as tenants after the death of Bhatena.
An ex parte decree was passed in favour of respondent No.
1 to 4 wherein it was stated that the death of Bhatena, statutory tenancy had companye to an end on November 15, 1971, the date of his death, and the defendants respondents Nos.
Respondents Nos.
5,000/ with Bhatena under the terms of the agreement dated October 12, 1971.
1 to 4.
5 and 6 should pay the said amount of companypensation to the appellants.
The Appellate Bench agreed with the finding recorded by the Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bombay that the order dated July 14, 1978 passed on the eviction application was a nullity inasmuch as the application filed by the appellants under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was number maintainable and the companyrt had numberjurisdiction to entertain and decide such an application.
l to respondent No.
5 and had acquired a right to become a deemed tenant protected under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act.
The High Court has disagreed with the said finding of the Appellate Bench and relying upon Clause 12 of the letter dated October 12,1971 addressed by respondent No.
In SLP No.
In the meanwhile, in March, 1972, the landlords filed an Ejection Application E.A.No.
5 and 6 companytinued to remain in occupation of that portion of the premises given to them as licensees after the death of Bhatena.
6 to occupy, as licensees, for a period of 11 months, a portion of the said premises, companysisting of two rooms with companymon user of kitchen under an agreement dated October 12, 1971, executed by Respondent No.
v. Chaman Paswan and Ors.
8,575 paid to Bhatna, respondents Nos.
5 asserted that the licence was subsisting in his favour on February 1, 1973 and he should be deemed to have become a tenant in accordance with the provisions of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act.
In furtherance to the said order, it is directed that apart from the sum of Rs.30,000/ which is required to be paid in accordance with the said directions of this Court the balance amount payable by respondents Nos.
1506/ 5225/73 against respondents Nos.
Under the terms of the said licence agreement, respondent No.
1 to 4 whereby he sought a declaration that he is the tenant in respect of the premises in his occupation and sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants respondents Nos.
1 to 4 as his heirs.
5 and 6 have numberlegal right in the premises and that they cannot claim any protection under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act as amended by Maharashtra Act XVII of 1973, inasmuch as the licence was number subsisting in their favour on February 1, 1973.
The letters dated July 25, 1972 and February 8, 1973 are also on the record.
l dated February 8, 1973 calling upon respondent No.
Bhatena died on November 15, 1971 leaving behind respondents Nos.
The plaint of that suit is on record.
5 in that suit and the same is on record.
The said obstruction numberice was disposed of by the Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bombay, by his order dated February 17, 1982 whereby the said numberice was discharged.
5 whereby respondent No.
325/ per month and paid a sum of Rs.3575/ to Bhatena towards the said companypensation for a period of 11 months.
In the said plaint, it was also averred that the licence that was created in favour of the plaintiff respondent No.
1 to 4 from disturbing the plaintiffs enjoyment, possession and use of the said premises in any manner whatsoever except by the due process of law.
Premises companyprising Block D, on the 3rd floor of Contractor Building at Bai Awabai Kashinath Road, Bombay, was let out by the owners to one Nadirshaw P.Bhatena hereinafter referred to as Bhatena on a monthly rent of Rs.
5 was allowed to stay as licensee on the same terms and companyditions.
5 and 6 submitted their reply to the Obstruction Notice wherein it was stated that the eviction application filed by the appellants under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was misconceived and that the order passed therein was without jurisdiction and is number executable.
16512/90 hereinafter referred to as the appellants are the owners of the said premises.
The Bombay Rent Act was amended by Maharashtra Act No.
In the said proceedings, respondents Nos.
1 to 4 were ordered to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises on or before August 31, 1978.
This question was number companysidered by the Judge, Court of Small Causes but it was companysidered by the Appellate Bench.
The other parties to these proceedings arc also described with reference to the said appeal.
Since the vacant possession of the premises was number handed over to the appellants by August 31, 1978 in accordance with the order dated July 14, 1978 passed in the Ejection Application the appellants took out warrant of possession and when they tried to execute the same through bailiff on September 12, 1978, respondents Nos.
5 to pay to him the amount of companypensation due upto February 11, 1973.
Respondents Nos.
On October 12, 1971, Bhatena permitted respondent No.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
The said suit was also number companytested by respondents Nos.
In the declaratory suit filed by respondents No.5 also they allowed an ex parte decree being passed against them.
The tenancy of Bhatena was terminated by numberice dated November 6, 1969 and thereafter he companytinued in occupation of the premises as a statutory tenant by virtue of protection companyferred by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act .
C. Agrawal, J. SLP C No.
The question which next arises for companysideration is, whether the said licence was subsisting on February 1, 1973 ?
5 and 6 who were in possession of the premises to challenge the said order.
57.30 paise.
16512/90.
Special Leave granted.
5 and 6 are liable to pay companypensation Rs.325/ per month with effect from October 12, 1971 and after adjusting the sum of Rs.
In the Eviction Application they had filed their written statement opposing the said application but did number take further part in the proceedings and allowed the said proceedings being decided ex parte against them.
1 to 4 have adopted an ambivalent attitude.
