Obstructionist numberice was served on all the petitioners and was made absolutely in favour of the landlord on February 27, 1974.
Affirming the findings of the trial Judge the appellate Court held that the petitioners were inducted into the premises after 1960 and, therefore, were number entitled to be regarded as lawful sub tenants.
Soli J. Sorabjee, P.H. Parekh and Hemant Sharma for the petitioners in SLP No.
5631 of 1931.
The six petitioners then filed separate suits Nos.
The petitioners appealed.
5698 5701 of 1981.
It seems that Saraswatibai sub divided the hall into a number of cabins, and transferred them to the occupation of the petitioners in this and the companynected special leave petitions.
Accordingly, the appellate Court maintained the dismissal of the suits filed by the petitioners.
Saraswatibai Dahyabhai Bhatt.
Anil B. Dewan, S.V. Bhat, R. Satish and E.C. Agarwala for the respondents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The Trial Judge ruled that they were number so protected and he dismissed the suits on March 29, 1978.
The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, and the High Court after hearing the parties rejected the petitions by its order dated July 15, 1981.
These petitions for special leave to appeal are directed against that order.
5734 to 5739 of 1976 against the landlord for a declaration that they were lawful sub tenants or licensees entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and for a permanent injunction restraining the landlord from executing the decree for ejectment obtained against Saraswatibai.
The landlord served a numberice dated July 28, 1962 on her terminating her tenancy and thereafter filed an ejectment suit No.
AND L.P. Civil No.5632 of 1981 With S.L.P. Civil Nos.
During the trial of the suits the sole issue pressed before the trial Judge was whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Act as lawful sub tenants or as deemed tenants or as protected licensees.
1814, 1965, 1966, 1913 and 1815 of 1981 respectively.
V. Patel, P.H. Parekh and Hemant Sharma for the petitioners in SLP No.
The landlord took out execution of the decree.
A decree for ejectment was passed in 1966.
The petitioners appealed, and on November 30, 1976 these appeals were dismissed.
576/5157 of 1962.
From the judgment and order dated the 15th July, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
5631 of 1981.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This and the companynected petitions pray for special leave to appeal to this Court against the refusal of the Bombay High Court to grant relief under Article 227 of the Constitution in the matter of the dismissal of six declaratory suits filed by the petitioners.
The first floor companysisted of a hall and three rooms and an adjoining terrace.
It found that Saraswatibai had become a statutory tenant on the termination of her tenancy by the numberice dated July 28, 1962, and the petitioners were her licensees and after the decree for ejectment against Saraswatibai on September 30, 1966 her rights and interest in the premises came to an end and from that date the licensees were number entitled to any statutory protection.
He let out the entire first floor to the second respondent, Smt.
The first respondent, Ahmed R.V. Peer Mohamed, is the owner of a property, Peerbhai Mansion, situate on Vithalbhai Patel Road, Bombay.
5632 of 1981.
An appeal by Saraswatibai was dismissed in 1972.
