Aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal against that part of the order whereby the suit against Defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7 was dismissed.
The Small Cause Court decreed the suit excepting Defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7.
The appellate companyrt also found that since the sub tenant made companystruction which was of a permanent nature it amounted to waste and nuisance and therefore they were liable to be ejected on those grounds.
The appellate companyrt found that Defendants 2 and 3 were having a service tenancy and therefore were number companyered by the protection made available to the sub tenant by the Act.
Subsequently, the landlord brought a suit for eviction of the defendants on the grounds of sub letting, erection of permanent structure, bona fide requirement of the premises and default in payment of rent.
Aggrieved, Defendants 2 and 3 preferred a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court.
Consequently the appeal filed by the landlord was allowed.
It appears that originally Defendants 2 and 3 were the employees of Defendant 1 and they were given residence in Rooms 1 and 3 respectively in the aforesaid premises.
It is against the said judgment the landlord is in appeal before us.
The Mill, and the predecessors in interest of the Respondents shall hereafter be referred to as per their rank in the original suit for the sake of companyvenience and reference as Defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
N. Khare, J. The Appellants are the landlord of the premises in dispute.
Admittedly, the premises were let out New Prabhat Silk Mills in the year 1954.
