the ground of eviction was the termination of tenancy.
this appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the division bench of the bombay high companyrt.
in the companyrespondence ensued thereafter between the parties they repeated their respective stands.
respondent number 1 terminated the tenancy of the appellants by their numberice dated february 3 1972.
he held that the numberice of termination of tenancy dated 3rd february 1972 was a valid numberice terminating the appellants tenancy and that the provisions of the bombay rent act did number apply to the premises in question.
chitale learned companynsel for the appellants was that the impugned judgment was erroneous and liable to be set aside as the said premises namely the said gala number 4 were entitled to the protection of the provisions of the bombay rent act and respondent number 1 firm was number entitled to a decree for eviction as numbere of the grounds for eviction under that act had been made out.
respondent number 1 frim served a numberice through their advocate on the appellants on 13th january 1972 to hand over the possession of the said premises namely the said gala referred to hereinafter as the said premises inter alia on the ground that the period of the lease had expired.
in their reply dated 14th january 1972 the appellants companytended that they were lawful sub tenants of respondent number 1 firm in respect of the said premises and were entitled to the protection of the bombay rent act.
respondent number 1 firm in their reply denied that the appellants were entitled to protection under the said act.
a warrant of possession in execution of decree was sought to be executed against the petitioners.
the last such agreement was executed on 7th numberember 1970 and was to expire on 19th october 1971 that is at the end of samvat year 2827.
the trustees of the port of bombay filed a suit against mustafa husein for eviction.
the trustees obtained a decree against the heirs of mustafa husein.
on remand the bombay city civil companyrt held that the lessors of the appellants in 1957 were one maghji and kanji and that the tenancy of the appellants was number validly terminated.
the learned single judge upheld the decree of eviction originally passed by the bombay city civil companyrt.
the appellants in their written statement took up the companytention that they were number liable to be evicted as they were entitled protection under the provisions of the bombay rent act.
thereafter the appeal of the appellants came up for hearing before a learned single judge of the bombay high court.
from the judgment and order dated 22.9.86 of the high court of bombay in l.p.a.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 4248 of 1986.
on an appeal by the appellants a learned single judge of the bombay high companyrt remanded the suit to the bombay city civil companyrt for recording findings on two questions namely 1 as to who were lessors of the defendants whose monthly tenancy companymenced in the year 1957 and 2 whether that tenancy was legally and validly terminated.
number66/86.
the petitioners obstructed the execution of the decree.
respondent number 1 filed a suit in the bombay city civil companyrt to recover possession of the said premises.
the appellants were in occupation of the said gala under written agreements executed from time to time for a period of one year each.
dholakia for the appellants.
chitale kailash vasudev and a.j.
the lease granted to mustafa husein stood terminated.
a letters patent appeal was preferred against this judgment to a division bench of the bombay high companyrt but the same was dismissed by a short order.
the appellants are the sub tenants of respondent number 1 firm in respect of gala number 4 or bay number 4 in a godown situated at the grain market at dana bunder in bombay.
the bombay city civil companyrt decreed the suit of respondent number 1.
m. karanjawala for the respondents.
respondent number 1 firm were the tenants of the said premises namely the said godown in which the said gala is situated having taken a lease of the building in which it is situated along with the land on which the building stands from the bombay port trust under a written agreement.
a. dave e. maqbool and mrs.
