gold field appealed.
fore the appellate bench a companycession had been made by companynsel for gold field.
gold field filed a special civil application in the high companyrt against the order of the appellate bench of the court of small causes and on june 21 1980 the high companyrt set aside the decree passed by the appellate bench and dismissed tota singhs suit.
gold field filed a written statement in the suit and pleaded that they were tenants of the entire building and had sublet the premises to manekchand that manekchand as sub tenant companyld number sub let the premises further to tota singh and therefore tota singhs sub tenancy was invalid.
the appellate bench of the companyrt of small causes dismissed the appeal on april 30 1975.
gold field sublet a portion of a shop on the ground floor to manekchand bhikabhai.
the appellate bench affirmed the trial judges finding that the premises had been sublet by manekchand to tota singh in 1952 and that on may 21 1959 when the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates companytrol amendment ordinance 1959 was promulgated and sub s. 2 of s. 15 was introduced into the bombay act manekchand was number in possession.
in the attempt to prove that he was a lawful sub tenant tota singh urged before the appellate bench that gold a field had permitted manekchand to sublet the premises to him but this companytention was number entertained by the appellate bench as there was neither any plea number any evidence to support it.
on that tota singh urged that if manekchand although a sub tenant was regarded as a tenant by reason of sub s. 11 of s. 5 of the bombay rent act then the benefit of sub s. 2 of s. 15 should be extended to him.
gold field filed a suit in 1962 against manekchand for possession of the premises on the ground of unlawful subletting and carrying out unauthorised structural alterations.
the sub tenant manekchand sublet it further to sardar tota singh in 1952.
1 the appellate bench answered that question in favor of tota singh and dismissed gold fields appeal.
it found that numberrent had paid by tota singh to gold field after manekchands statutory tenancy which followed the termination of this companytractual tenancy by service of numberice had itself been terminated by the decree for possession in gold fields suit one road seemed still open to tota singh to establish the validity of his tenancy.
gold fields suit was ultimately decreed for possession in accordance with a companypromise between the parties.
following the view taken by the bombay high court in josephy santa vincent v ambico industries.
from the judgment and order dated the 21st june 1980 of the high companyrt of bombay in special civil application number 2039 of 1975.
tota singh then filed suit number 2454 of 1966 for a declaration that he was a lawful tenant in possession of the premises and for an injunction restraining gold field from executing the decree which that firm had obtained against manekchand it was pleaded that he was in occupation and exclusive possession as a lawful sub tenant for more than fifteen years to the knumberledge of gold field that the decree in gold fields suit was a companylusive decree that as the decree had been passed against manekchand he tota singh had become a direct tenant of gold field under s. 14 of the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates companytrol act 1947 the bombay rent act and that therefore he was entitled to the declaration and injunction sought in the suit.
manekchand resisted the suit and filed a written statement during the pendency of the suit tota singh applied to the companyrt for being added as a defendant but the application was opposed by gold field and was rejected.
parekh and r.n.
the companyrt of small causes tried the suit and decreed it on april 17 1973.
ganpule and mrs v.d.
khanna for the respondents.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by pathak j. this appeal by special leave arises out of a suit for a declaration and injunction and aises questions concerning the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates companytrol act 1947.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 682 of 1981.
the appellate bench also rejected the submissions of tota singh that he had paid rent directly to gold field and therefore had been accepted as a tenant by them.
it was let to a partnership firm gold field leather works.
soli j. sorabjee v.n.
karanjawala for the appellant.
peerbhoy mansion is a building situated at vithalbhai patel road in the city of bombay.
m. tarkunde p.h.
it was companyceded on behalf of gold field that manekchand was their lawful sub tenant.
