The High Court refused to interfere with the finding of the Small Cause Court that the respondent was a licensee and number a tenant.
The Small Cause Court, Bombay negatived the plea on the ground that there was numbersubsisting agreement for licence on the 1st of February, 1973 as there was numberhing on record to show that after 31st March, 1966 the leave and licence agreement between the parties was renewed or any fresh agreement was entered into.
That decision was a case where the appellants therein had granted a licence in respect of certain shop premises in Bombay to the respondent under a Leave and Licence Agreement which expired on 31st March, 1966.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.1980 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appeal No.
On or about 9th November, 1970, the respondent herein filed an ejectment proceeding against the appellant under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.
2181 of 1977 by which the case was sent back to the High Court for a fresh decision, keeping in view the decision of this Court in D.H. Maniar and others v. Waman Laxman Kudav, 1977 1 S.C.R. 403.
By the amending Act, sections 5 4A and 15A were introduced in the parent Act to companyfer on the licensee, who had a subsisting agreement on February 1, 1973, the status and protection of a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act.
On or about 9th of November, 1970 the owner of the premises filed an ejectment proceeding against one Sugrabhai Mohammed Husain and obtained a decree.
Thereafter the High Court disallowed the special civil application by its order dated 17th of November, 1980.
In July, 1967 the appellants 1064 filed an application for eviction under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.
The respondent had filed a revision petition under section 115 of C.P.C. in the High Court.
Thereafter the appellants had served a numberice upon the respondent calling upon him to remove himself from the said premises.
The trial Judge in the instant case passed a decree in ejectment petition filed by the respondent and ordered the appellant to vacate the premises before 31st of January, 1975.
The appellant was companytending that he was a direct tenant of the respondent.
In setting out the terms of the agreement the emphasis has been supplied to the relevant clauses to highlight the points in companytroversy.
The respondent approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
They filed ejectment proceedings against one 1060 Sugrabhai Mohammed Husain, their tenant and obtained a decree.
251 of 1977.
The main question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant was a licensee or a tenant and also incidentally the question whether the Court of Small Causes, Bombay had jurisdiction to deal with the eviction petition in this case.
Without prejudice to the above companytention it was companytended by the appellant that the respondent was number the owner of the workshop and also denied that he had given the workshop to respondent for companyducting business.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is stated that the appellant was a monthly tenant of the suit premises since about 2nd February, 1965.
R. Nariman, E.K. Jose, P.H. Parekh and Miss Sunita Sharma for the Appellant.
Before the Judge, Court of Small Causes the points of defences were filed in which the appellant had stated that the application was number maintainable and the plaintiff was himself occupying the premises under one Sugrabhai Mohammed Husain who himself had adopted ejectment proceedings against the respondent.
On or about 9th of February, 1965 a fresh document of that date, was executed and it is alleged that the appellant companytinued by virtue of that agreement.
This Court allowing the appeal held that in order to get the advantage of section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, the occupant must be in occupation of the premises as a licensee as defined in section 5 4A on the 1st of February, 1973.
H. Muchhala, B.R. Aggarwala and Miss. S. Manchanda for the Respondent.
The Bombay Rent Act was amended by Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973.
274/77 and an order was passed in Civil Appeal No.
The High Court allowed the revision on the ground that the licence was number put an end to by the appellants and that in any event by filing the application for eviction the appellant licensor had granted an implied licence to the respondent licensee to companytinue in possession till a decree of eviction was passed in his favour.
1377 of 1982.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated 17th of November, 1980.
The companytention of the respondent that he was a tenant was negatived by the Small Cause Court, Bombay.
It is alleged that this agreement was entered into between the parties since the respondent wanted to charge more rent or mesne profits.
The agreement further recited that the licensor shall have the full right to enter upon the premises and inspect the same at any time.
The respondent refused to do so.
The submission was that there was sub tenancy by the respondent in favour of the appellant as a monthly tenant of the business with the articles and machinery belonging to the appellant and number to the respondent.
The respondent in that case by an amendment had taken the plea of protection under the Maharashtra Amendment Act 17 of 1973 on the ground that he was in occupation of the premises on 1st February, 1973 under a subsisting agreement for licence.
