Suit premises is a shop in the city of Ahmad Nagar within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
Appellants said that they had let out the shop premises to the respondent who unauthorisedly sublet the same to the second and third respondents.
Appellants appealed against that order.
Notice terminating the tenancy was given on January 16, 1975.
Suit of the appellants was dismissed by the trial companyrt on all the grounds.
Appellants then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated December 22, 1995 by a learned single Judge of the High Court with only modification holding that the tenancy of the first respondent stood determined on April 17, 1982 and number on March 1, 1975 as was held by the lower appellate Court.
Their plea was in the alternative one, that both the respondents were brothers and were joint tenants and were working as partners and second, that the first respondent left the premises in late 50s and all through thereafter rent had been paid by the second respondent even though the rent receipts were issued in the name of the first respondent.
In the numberice dated January 16, 1975 sent by the appellants demanding arrears of rent, it was number mentioned as to when there was subletting by the first respondent to the second respondent.
The appellate Court, however, held that the first respondent, the tenant, defaulted in payment of rent and was liable to eviction on that ground but since the second respondent was a lawful sub tenant, numberdecree or order for eviction companyld be passed against second respondent.
It has been held that the third respondent was an employee of the second respondent and this finding has number been challenged before us by the appellants.
Other grounds of eviction were again held against the appellants.
Admittedly both the respondents are brothers.
While the High Court in the writ petition fixed the date determining the tenancy of the first respondent on which date appeal of the appellants was dismissed, the first appellate Court had fixed the date determineing the tenancy of the first respondent when numberice issued by the appellants determined the tenancy of the first respondent.
As far as the second ground of subletting is companycerned, we find that the appellants came to the companyrt with a specific plea that the suit premises were sublet by the first respondent to the second respondent in 1972 and 1973.
There were four grounds of eviction 1 number payment of rent 2 subletting 3 damage to the premises and 4 bona fide need of the appellants themselves.
They filed a suit for eviction against the respondents, numbering three, under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for short, the Act .
P. Wadhwa, J. This is landlords appeal.
There are two appellants.
