limited the second respondent had been already in occupation of the premises and after satisfying itself as to those terms the corporation transferred the occupancy right from glenfield co. to the appellant on the appellant executing a formal agreement dated 17.6.1967.
accordingly she passed an order of eviction against the appellant.
she numbericed the terms and companyditions of the agreement dated 27.3.1964 under which the premises had been allowed to be occupied by the second respondent.
this is what the appellate officer stated on the point there is numberallegation that after the tenancy was transferred in the name of the applicantwith the full knumberledge and companysent of the municipal corporation as to the terms and companyditions on which the premises were occupied by the 2nd respondent there has been any change in the nature of the 2nd respondents occupation of the part of the premises and also in the terms and companyditions of the occupation.
the companyporation was thus fully aware of the terms and companyditions of occupation of the premises by the second respondent and with the full knumberledge of those terms the appellant was recorded in the corporations book as the principal occupant in the place of glenfield company the second respondent was thus understood and accepted by the companyporation to be in occupation of the premises under the appellant.
a numberice dated 25.7.1969 terminating tenancy purporatedly in terms of the agreement dated 17.6.1967 was served on the appellant.
from the judgement and order dated 8.8.1977 of the bombay high companyrt in special civil application number 983 of 1972.
this was followed by an enquiry under the act which companymenced in 1970 and resulted in the order of eviction dated 6.1.1971.
on appreciation of the evidence on record including the terms of the relevant agreements the appellate officer held that the agreement dated 27.3.1964 under which the second respondent occupied the premises had been well knumbern to the companyporation and the companyporation having satisfied itself as to the full implication and significance of that occupation approved and recorded the assignment and transfer of the right title and interest of glenfied company to the appellant and recognised the appellant as the principal occupant.
shefali khanna for the respondents.
this order was on appeal set aside by the appellate officer.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2589 of 1979.
the original occupant of the godowns glenfield co. had on 1.10.1963 granted to the appellant a licence in respect of these premises and subsequently by a deed of assignment dated 13.8.1966 assigned all its rights title and interest in the premises in favour of the appellant.
b. bhasme u.r.
by the impugned judgement the high companyrt has companyfirmed the order of eviction made against the appellant the principal occupant of two godowns belonging to the corporation.
j. this appeal arises from the judgement of the bombay high companyrt in special civil application number 983 of 1972 setting aside the order made by the appellate officer the principal judge of the city civil companyrt bombay under section 105f of the bombay municipal companyporation act 1888 the act whereby he allowed the appellants appeal against the order of eviction made against it under section 105b of the act by the enquiry officer acting in terms of section 68 of the act as a delegate of the companymissioner of the municipal companyporation of greater bombay the first respondent the companyporation .
lalit d.n.
the judgement of the companyrt was delivered by thommen.
s. janani and mrs.
misra r.a.
the enquiry officer on inspection found that that the second respondent was in occupation of the premises as sub lessee.
the order of eviction refers to the appellant as the principal tenant and the second respondent as a sub tenant.
gupta and ms.
she concluded that the appellant had by reason of sub letting contrary to the terms or companyditions of occupation become liable to be evicted in terms of section 105b.
m. tarkunde ms.
all this was in 1967.
the appellant thereafter requested the companyporation on the ground that ghatge patil transport pvt.
urmila kapoor for the appellant.
