and other Bed rooms 1,2 which were vacated by other paying guests were in the companytrol of the respondent and that the respondent did number dispossess the appellant from the hall as alleged.
The respondent sent a rejoinder on 19.12.78.
In December 1973, the appellant was married at Allahabad and before his wife joined him, executed a letter dated dated 31.1.1974 admitting that he was a paying guest and seeking permission to bring his wife, He was so permitted to use the dining hall also.
Th Respondent filed an eviction case on 28.2.1979 as stated above and the appellant filed the other suit on 12.4.1979 for declaration that he was tenant.
5105 and 5106 of 1994.
200 as distinct from one by other in ground floor as paying guest at Rs.
The appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bandra however allowed both appeals preferred by the respondent, by judgment dated 25.61994.
The appellate Court has found on a companysideration of the letter dated 31.1.1974 and other evidence adduced by parties that the appellant, to start with was a paying guest of bedroom No.3 even after appellants wife joined, that the appellants wife was permitted on companypassionate grounds to companyk in the pantry, that the hall was number given to the appellant when the charges were increased to Rs.
Learned senior companynsel for the appellant companytended that the appellant was in exclusive possession of the bed room No.3 and the dining hall, bathroom and pantry as a tenant, that the letter dated 31.11974 wherein appellant admitted he was a paying guest was obtained by the respondent by pressure, and that the respondent had admitted in his evidence that in 1978 79 he had informed the Bombay Municipal Corporation, in tax assessment proceedings that the appellant was a tenant to whom part of the ground floor was let at Rs.
200/ per month.
the appellant sent a reply on 19.12.1978 and claimed he was licensee and did number claim that he was a tenant.
2500/ till 31.12.1978 at Rs.
So far as the statement of the appellant that he informed the Corporation that the portion was let to appellant was companycerned, it was observed by the first appellate Court that the appellant was number asked in Cross examination as to why he had so informed the Corporation and that, in any event, the letter dated 31.1.1974 executed by the appellant and other evidence showed that the real relationship of the appellant in respect of the room was as paying guest.
The plan shows that the front close verandah opens into the dining Hall, and on the left, there are Bed Room 1,2 and 3 one after the other and beyond Bedroom 3 is the kitchen etc.
The respondent gave a numberice dated 2.11.1978 revoking the permission granted to the appellant to occupy as paying guest.
According to the appellant the respondent forcibly entered in the hall in October 1978.
200/ P.M., and that the dining hall was in occupation or companytrol of the respondent for otherwise the respondent would number have been able to enter Bedroom No.2 on the leftside or the kitchen on the numberth, beyond the Bedroom No.3 that was being used by the appellant.
20/ and this admission was number explained.
5105 and 51.6 of 1994 and they were dismissed by the High Court on 22.4.1997.
The appellants suit was decreed and the respondents suit was dismissed.
The occupation charges were increased to Rs.
According to the owner, the appellant was a paying Guest from February march 1971 of Bed Room No.
These two appeals are filed by the appellant against the said judgments.
The respondent sent a rejoinder on 19.12.1978 and claimed he was licensee and did number claim that he was a tenant.
The Trial Judge by judgment dated 27/28 6 1989 disposed of both suits by a companymon judgment holding that appellant was number a paying guest but was a tenant from the beginning.
The appellant filed R.A.D Suit number 2041 of 1979, Small Causes Court, Bombay for a declaration that he was tenant in respect of the Bathroom.
86/116 of 1979 for possession against the appellant of one room adjoining the kitchen on the ground floor of the bungalow known as Carmel View situated at 63, Mount carmel Road, Bandra W , Bombay and for arrears of paying quest charges of Rs.
These two Civil appeals have been failed by the appellant against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in P. No.
The appellant filed two writ petitions Nos.
Bharat Sangal, P. Midha, Advs.
with her for the appellant A. Bobde, Sr.
with him for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court wad delivered JAGANNADHA RAO.
The finding is therefore that the dining hall and kitchen etc.
J. Leave granted.
The respondent filed L.E. C. Suit No.
These findings arrived at by the appellate Court are findings of fact and were and liable to be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the companystitution of India.
120/ per month.
200/ per month and for mesne profits from 1.1.1979 till vacant possession is granted.
2 on an occupation charge of Rs.
S.D.Mudaliar, U.U. Lalit, Advs.,
