Both the above mentioned questions, as already indicated, were answered by the Full Bench in the affirmative, the companyrectness of otherwise of those findings is the issue that falls for our companysideration.
The Small Causes Court decreed the suit on 07.02.1997 and ordered eviction of the appellants with a specific finding that they are gratuitous licensee.
FACTUAL MATRIX Respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with other plaintiffs who are number deceased filed a suit L.E. and C. No.430/582 of 1978 under Section 41 of the PSCC Act before the Small Causes Court, Bombay against the appellants original defendants for recovery and vacant possession of one bed room in Flat No.16, Ram Mahal, Churchgate, Mumbai and also for other companysequential reliefs.
The appellants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, which was dismissed on 05.04.2003.
Against that order both the appellants and respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court, Bombay and the respondents writ petition was for claiming mesne profits.
The Defendants questioned the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai to entertain and try the suit before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehras case supra companytending that the licence created by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants was gratuitous, i.e. without companysideration, hence the suit is number maintainable in that Court.
Permission granted to the defendants to use the premises was later revoked and since they did number vacate the suit flat and companytinued to hold possession wrongfully and illegally, suit was filed for eviction.
Consequently, a Full Bench was companystituted.
Learned Single Judge vide his order dated 16.01.2006 referred the matter to a larger bench.
Plaintiffs submitted that the defendants were in use and in occupation of the above premises as their guest house and so far as hall and kitchen are companycerned, family members of the plaintiff and defendants were using it as companymon amenities.
The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, which is the Judgment under appeal, reported in 2007 5 Maharashtra Law Journal 341, answered the question in the affirmative overruling the Ramesh Dwarikadas Mehra case supra , the legality of which is the question, that falls for our companysideration.
S. Radhakrishnan, J Leave granted.
The plaintiffs also claim that they are in occupation of another bed room in the suit flat and numbermonetary companysideration was charged by them from the defendants for exclusive use and occupation of one bed room and joint use of the hall and kitchen as companymon amenities.
