A portion carved out therefrom by a wooden partition was apparently sublet by M s. Interseas Corporation to the appellant M s. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. in July 1951.
This orders as said before, was left uninterfered with by the Letters Patent Bench.
It also appears that M s. S.M. Enterprises also became sub lessees of M s. Interseas Corporation of another portion of the property.
But the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India, did number choose to file any Writ Petition challenging those orders whereby its claim for damages had been negatived by the appellate Court.
The appellate Court upheld the order of eviction but reversed the order relating to damages, companying to the companyclusion that there was numberevidence in support of the order.
The aggrieved appellant Company maintains that the High Court companyld number have deprived it of the advantage gained by the orders of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, in rejecting the petition under Section 7 of the Act relating to the question of damages.
It was made clear that the orders were set aside only insofar as the appellant companypany was companycerned and number in respect of other parties.
This plea was objected to by learned companynsel appearing for the appellants on the procedural plea that when the appellate companyrt had quashed the order of damages and there had number been any petition preferred by the Life Insurance Corporation before the High Court, the matter companyld number be raked up all the more when it companycerned the original tenant as well, who had been deleted from the array of parties before the learned Single Judge, by companysent.
This appeal is virtually against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 9 11 1993 passed in Writ Petition No.2949 of 1993 against which Letters Patent Appeal No.1 of 1994 was dismissed summarily by a Division Bench of that Court on 14 1 1994.
Legal proceedings were initiated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the respondent herein, against the appellant Company and one of its shareholders cum Directors, for possession of the premises in question under the provisions of The Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 for short the Act .
Punchhi, J. Leave granted.
The Estate Officer also passed an order for damages to the tune of about Rs.12 lakhs.
Being aggrieved against the said order of eviction as well as damages, appeals were preferred by the appellant Company as well as the original tenant before the Principal Bench, City Civil Court, Bombay.
The Estate Officer after companyducting the requisite inquiry as companytemplated under the Act passed an order of eviction of the original tenants as also the appellant Company holding it as unauthorised occupant being unlawful sub tenant of the original tenant.
The said order of eviction was thus challenged by the appellant Company before the High Court of Bombay.
On the setting up of the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 all the assets and liabilities of the said Great Social Life Insurance Company were taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
It is appellants case that in companysequence thereof, M s. Interseas Corporation became the tenant of the Life Insurance Corporation and the appellant companypany became the sub tenant by operation of law in relation to the premises in question.
Further it is the case of the appellant companypany that it has become a deemed tenant under the respondent Life Insurance Corporation because of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Amendment Ordinance of 1959.
