The agreement was never acted upon and was intended to be a cloak to companyceal the true nature of the transaction.
On the expiry of the agreement the appellants had numberfurther right to enter into the shop and in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the plaint the respondent firm alleged that some companymission was due to it and further it asked the appellants number to disturb the possession and peaceful enjoyment of the shop by the respondent but the appellants, their servants and agents were visiting the shop daily and preventing the respondent from having access to its various articles such as stock in trade, books of account, furniture, fixtures etc.
500/ but as numbersub tenancy companyld be legally created at the time, without the companysent of the landlord, by reason of the provisions of the Act, the respondent firm with a view to safeguard its position in regard to the penal provisions of the Act required the appellants to enter into a sham agreement in the shape of a letter dated June 30, 1952.
1, appellant No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 19, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The plaint proceeded on the footing that during the period of the agreement the appellants were mere licensees, and after the expiry of the agreement they were trespassers and had numberright to be in the shop.
C. Chatterjee, J.B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
The appellants further alleged that the agreement dated June 23, 1955, was also number operative between the parties, and the true relation between the parties was that of landlord and tenant.
The plaint in terms negatives any relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties to the suit.
75 of 1962.
The respondent before us is a partnership firm.
582/638, at Mulji Jetha Market, Bombay.
K. DAS J. The only question which arises in this appeal is, whether on a proper interpretation of s. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Bombay Act LVII of 1947 the Court of Small Causes Bombay had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the suit out of which this appeal has arisen.
The main averments in the plaint were that by the aforesaid agreement defendant No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and D. D. Sharma, for respondents.
It instituted a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court to be distinguished from the Court of Small Causes, Bombay in which it asked for 1 a declaration that it was in lawful possession of shop No.
152 of 1959.
582/638 at Mulji Jetha Market, Bombay and that the present appellants who were the defendants in the suit or their family members, servants or agents had numberright to enter into or remain in possession of the said shop 2 for an injunction restraining the present appellants, their family members, servants and agents from entering into the said shop and 3 for an amount of companymission payable to it under an agreement dated June 23, 1955.
was delivered by Das J Sarkar J., delivered separate, judgment.
April 22.
On these averments the respondent firm asked for the reliefs to which we have earlier referred.
It was in possession as a tenant of a shop No.
The judgment of S.K. Das and Hidayatullah, JJ.
Pursuant to the agreement, the appellants, their family members, servants and agents were allowed by the respondent to visit the shop only for the purpose of looking after the business of companymission agency.
1 before us, appointed the respondent as his companymission agent for the sale of the appellants cloth in the shop in question.
The agreement was to remain in force for a period of four years expiring on June 30, 1959.
