The appellant before us, namely, Feroze N. Dotivala approached the respondents namely, Wadhwanis in response to the above numbered advertisement and he was given the accommodation on payment of certain amount as companypensation for the same.
The language used in the advertisement has also been taken into companysideration to rule out the plea of the respondent that the appellant was a paying guest.
The appellate companyrt while dismissing the appeal made reference to the English Law on the subject and on the basis of the same observed that the licensor must retain general companytrol over the premises given to a person as a paying guest.
The trial companyrt, however, denied the relief sought for use of the terrace, which also he claimed to be in his tenancy, adjacent to his premises in companyner of which one Shri Ajhwani lived in a room.
The appeal filed before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court was dismissed.
The case of the defendant regarding companymon use of certain parts of the accommodation was number accepted.
This gave rise for the appellant to file a suit for declaration, namely, Suit No.
The trial companyrt while decreeing the suit recorded a finding that the plaintiff, namely, the appellant before us, with his family, is separately residing in the apartment which is self contained whereas the defendants are residing in the other portion of the terrace flat.
Hence this appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court.
2002 Supp 4 SCR 416 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BRIJESH KUMAR, J. An advertisement was published in the times of India dated 5.10.1959 it read as follows Accommodation available for two rooms self contained apartment with sea view, telephone optional, ideal for executive, companyples, reasonable terms.
The suit was decreed.
A writ petition, however, preferred by the respondent has been allowed by the High Court holding that the appellant before us is a paying guest.
While dealing with the facts of the case it was also held by the trial companyrt that there was numberhing to indicate that the defendants retained companytrol or dominance over the premises given to the plaintiff number it would be companyceivable that defendants would agree to suffer unity of residence with the plaintiff.
2365 of 1975 in the Small Causes Court, Bombay for a decree in his favour that he be declared as a deemed tenant of the accommodation and an injunction was also prayed against the defendant respondents to the effect that they would number disturb his possession over the premises in question.
The appellant did number accede to the request made.
