As per the requirement of section 42A of the S.C.C. Act, the question whether the respondent was a tenant of the appellants was tried as a preliminary issue by the Small Cause Court, Bombay.
31st March, 1966 the parties of the First Part shall be at liberty to remove the goods and articles of the party of the Second Part by themselves, by employment of labour at the companyt and on account of the party of the Second Part and shall be entitled to stop and prevent the, Party of the Second Part from entering the premises and making use of the same by himself or his agent.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18 2 1975 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Appln.
The respondent, thereafter, by an amendment of his written defence filed in the Small Cause Court proceeded to take the additional plea of protection under Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973.
He purported to claim to be a tenant of the premises and with that end in view his Advocate wrote a letter to appellant No.
A single Judge of that Court by his Judgment and order dated June 30, 1972 held against the respondent and found that he was number a tenant of the appellants in respect of the shop premises.
By the amending Act, section 5 4A and Section 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.
This order was number appealable.
For the purpose of the point at issue the distinction is more illu sory than real.
Hence respondent filed a revision before the High Court.
Subsequent companyrespondence followed between the parties in which the appellants showed their readiness and willingness to accept money from the respondent by way of companypensation for the use and occupation of the shop premises without prejudice to their rights and threatening to take legal action for getting the possession of the prem ises.
Although the amendment was number fully and effec tively allowed by the Small Cause Court Judge, the parties had proceeded on the footing that such a plea became avail able to the respondent.
The Bombay Rent Act was amended by Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973.
A reply to the letter aforesaid of the respondents advocate was given on behalf of the appellants on June 14, 1966 refuting there in the respondents claim of being a tenant of the shop premises and asserting that he was a mere licensee.
Duration of the period of licence mentioned in this agreement was in the following terms This agreement shall be deemed to have companymenced from 1st May 1965 and shall remain in force for 11 months and will automatically companye to an end on 31st March, 1966 on which day the Party of the Second Part shall remove himself from the premises of his own accord with all his arti cles and belongings and in event of the Party of the Second Part number clearing out of the premises on the said day viz.,
The re spondent filed a writ application in the High Court which after hearing the appellants was dismissed on July 3, 1973.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
212 of 1976.
By a reasoned order dated Decem ber 11, 1972 the appellate Bench upheld the finding of the single Judge and summarily dismissed the appeal.
On the 10th July, 1967 the appellants filed an applica tion under section 41 of the S.C.C. Act.
An appeal was taken by the respondent to a Bench of two judges of the Small Cause Court under section 42A 2 of the S.C.C. Act.
In that view of the matter the Trial Court held that the respondent was number entitled to the protec tion of the Bombay Rent Act companyferred on a licensee by Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973.
Hence this appeal.
The Court allowed the appel lants application and made an order under section 43 of the C.C. Act directing the respondent to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises to the appellants within one month from the date of the order i.e. the 11th Octo ber, 1974.
Soli J. Sorabji, P.H. Parekh, Miss Manju letly and M s Dharia D.D. Kapadia for the appellant.
The last agreement was dated April 30, 1965.
The respondent did number vacate and remove himself from the premises as per the aforesaid term of the agreement.
H. Parekh for the Intervener.
It was also said that the said licence had automatically companye to an end on March 31, 1966 and thereafter he was numberbetter than a trespasser.
The Small Cause Court made an order in favour of the appellants under section 43 of the S.C.C. Act.
On the filing of an application in revision by the respondent in the Bombay High Court, a learned single Judge of that Court has set aside the order of the Small Cause Court and dismissed the appellants application for eviction of the respondent.
K. Desai, S.S. Khanduja and Vijay Gandotra for the respondent.
The appellants had allowed the respondents to occupy the shop premises in question which are situated outside Swa deshi Market, Kalbadevi Road in Bombay under certain agreements of leave and licence which were renewed from time to time.
741/74 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. The appellants in this appeal by special leave had filed an application under section 41 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 hereinafter re ferred to as the S.C.C. Act, against the respondent to companypel him to quit and deliver up the possession of the premises in question.
The learned Judge also seems to be making a difference between the filing of a suit against a licensee whose li cence has been terminated treating him as a trespasser and an application under section 41 of the S.C.C. Act.
1 on May 23, 1966 stating therein that the respondent was a tenant of the shop premises and had remitted the rent for the months of March and April, 1976.
A learned single Judge of the Small Cause Court held 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.
