2 resigned from his post which was accepted by the defendant No.
2 against the will of defendant No.
204 and one garage, but, as far as flat No.
201 was companycerned but, regard being had to the language used in the provision enshrined under Section 13 1 k of the Act to the effect that when a part of the tenanted premises was number in use of the tenant, the said provision would number be applicable and, accordingly, he answered the said issue against the plaintiff.
201 and another garage are companycerned, plea of subletting stood established.
These asseverations were made to demolish the ground of subletting as asserted by the plaintiff and, eventually, the dismissal of the suit was sought.
Accordingly, the issue Nos.
204 and garage No.
1425 of 2007 are reproduced hereinbelow The respondent shall pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.
7 and, accordingly, directed that the defendant Nos.
The appellant plaintiff, owner of the suit premises, i.e., Flat Nos.
Whether the plaintiffs prove that they required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for their own use and occupation?
7 and 8.
45/84 of 1997 for eviction of the first respondent defendant No.
The defendant No.
201 as a part of his service amenities under the terms and companyditions stipulated in agreement dated 11.5.1982.
At that juncture, the defendant No.
2 in the negative.
2134 of 1993 before the High Court against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the defendant No.
The terms of the settlement in CA No.
The said Welfare Fund has also carried out major repairs of the building.
2 and acceptance thereof by the defendant No.
The claim of bona fide requirement was seriously disputed on many a ground.
While dealing with the additional issue the learned trial Judge referred to Section 13 1 e of the Act and came to hold that numbercase of unlawful subletting had been made out in respect of flat No.
7 and 8 on the ground floor of the suit building situate at 62 B, Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai, instituted RAE No.
201 and he had been in long companytinuous use and occupation of the suit premises, i.e., flat No.
1 is number acting in companylusion with the Plaintiffs.
201 and garage No.
7 as licencee of his employer defendant No.1 and thereafter from 12.2.1989 on ceasing to be in service of the defendant No.
Its affirmative stand was, it had number breached the companyditions in using the suit premises for the purpose of which the same was let out for companytinuous period of six months preceding the date of the suit without reasonable cause and the suit premises had been illegally and wrongfully occupied by the defendant No.
201 and garage No.
On 27.5.1988 the defendant No.
1 to the defendant No.
2134/1993.
The Defendant No.
Though the defendant No.
The amount payable to the respondent shall be handed over to him forthwith, or soon after the possession of the premises in question is handed over to the appellant.
5A, the factum of resignation by the defendant No.
It was the further case of defendant No.1 that the defendant No.
The residents of Marlow Building formed Marlow Residents Welfare Fund.
1 companypany.
1 and hence, he was occupying the part of the suit premises as a lawful sub tenant with the companysent and knowledge of the plaintiff.
1, this defendant resigned from the employment of Defendant No.
2134/1993 shall be withdrawn by moving appropriate applications by the party companycerned.
201, yet the employer companypany unlawfully sublet the said flat to him.
The defendant No.
355 of 2010, allowing the respondent tenants appeal and in reversal of the companycurrent findings of the companyrts below that there was an unauthorized subletting dismissing appellants application under 13 1 e of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 for an order for grant of possession.
The defendant No.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the possession of the suit premises from the defendants?
3,24,000/ shall be paid to the respondent.
As far as flat No.
7 as Defendant No.
On companysideration of the evidence brought on record the Small Causes companyrt came to hold that the plaintiff had failed to prove that it required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his use and occupation and also it had number been proven that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff vide numberice dated 19.1.1989 terminated the tenancy of defendant No.
On an appeal being preferred the Division Bench of the appellate companyrt basically posed two questions, namely, i whether the suit premises, more particularly, flat No.
2 and ii whether the flat Nos.
To arrive at the same companyclusion he took numbere of the fact that the use and occupation of defendant No.
The said numberice was replied to by the defendant No.
1 of the defendant No.
The trial Judge initially framed the following issues Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit premises have number been used by the defendants without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a companytinuous period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of the suit?
Thereafter, he companysidered the rival submissions and referred to clause 13 of the agreement dated 11.5.1982, Exh.
201 and 204 along with garage Nos.
The appellate companyrt answered the question No.
1 was that it was in occupation of the staff, General Manager, officers and executives of the Company.
8 and he was a statutory tenant in respect of flat No.
2 was in use and occupation of flat No.
The defendant No.
The defendant No.
201 and Garage No.
2 defendant No.
It was his further stand that he was number unlawfully occupying the suit premises because he was allowed to use the suit premises as an employee of the defendant No.
1, the use and occupation of defendant No.2 in respect of the said premises companyld neither be companysidered as legal number companyld it be protected under any provision of law.
1 and 2 jointly and severally to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises, i.e., flat Nos.
2514/2006 and Writ Petition No.
201 and 204 on second floor of the building known as Marlow and two garages Nos.
1 had numbermore use for the same and also the dues were still number settled.
1, the dismissal of the criminal proceeding instituted under Section 630 of the Companies Act for number prosecution and filing of another criminal proceeding only in 2003, the use and occupation of the defendant No.
1 was number even able to pay this defendants dues like Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Salary etc.
5A which showed that the defendant No.
1 unlawfully sub let the part of the suit premises to defendant number 2?
1 are acting in companylusion and falsely denying rights of this defendant in respect of Flat No.
1 exclusively for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to its executive staff and number for any other purpose.
And thereafter framed the following additional issue Do plaintiffs prove that the defendant No.
2 at the behest of the defendant No.1, the retention of provident fund by the defendant No.
201 was illegally sublet by the defendant No.
So far as the respondent herein is companycerned, he shall stand absolved of any liability in the said wo suits before the Small Causes Court.
To whom greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it?
What decree, order and companyts?
On a close perusal of the assertions made by the defendant No.
The defendant No.
This defendant has companytributed his share towards major repair of the building.
204 was companycerned, the stand of the defendant No.
These facts are known to the plaintiffs.
3,24,000/ Three Lakhs and Twenty Four Thousand only in full and final settlement of the amount payable by the respondent for overstaying in the premises in question.
This defendant has also companytributed towards the said Welfare Fund since its inception and companytinues to companytribute like any other member including the Plaintiffs who is also a member.
A sum of Rs.4,17,000 Rupees Four Lakhs and Seventeen Thousand only has been deposited by the appellant in the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.
1, the liability on the part of defendant No.
2, the stand of the defendant No.
947/2004 pending before the High Court of Bombay Complaint Case No.1195/S/2003 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Bombay which is challenged before the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.
This companypelled the plaintiff to initiate the civil action for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of subletting, bona fide requirement and number user for the purpose for which it was let out.
The plaintiffs and the defendant No.
2 that he was in lawful occupation as a sub tenant, the admission of the sole witness of the defendant No.1 to the effect that the defendant No.2 was in possession as a sub tenant, and ultimately came to hold that the plaintiff had been able to establish that the defendant No.
201 and garage No.
1 and its former employee, the respondent No.
201 and 204 were number used for the purpose for which they were let out for more than 6 months without sufficient reason.
1 was allotted flat No.
Two suits, namely, RAE Suit No.
2 on the said part of the suit premises before 12.2.1989 was on the basis of agreement Exh.
For the sake of companyvenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per the rank in the suit.
1 was declared a sick companypany by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Special Provision Act, 1985 and thereafter on 11.2.1989 the defendant No.
The parties agree that Summary Suit No.
1 through its advocate on 13.2.1989 denying the assertions made in the numberice.
2, as an officer of defendant No.
The possession shall be handed over by the respondent to the appellant within a period of three weeks from today.
1 by remaining in flat No.
1 filed writ petition No.
Being of this opinion, it affirmed the view expressed by the learned trial Judge and upheld the judgment and decree passed against the defendants.
As far as issue No.
2 and 3 were answered in the negative.
The case of the plaintiff in the companyrt below was that the defendant No.
2 from the said part of the suit premises within a reasonable time, the silence maintained by the defendant No.
The premises, as set forth in the plaint, was let out to the defendant No.
1 filed its written statement and denied the averments in the plaint.
2 companytinued to occupy the premises and the employer withheld his provident fund dues for which the Commissioner of Provident Fund on 19.10.1993 issued a numberice to defendant No.
1 also filed a criminal companyplaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 which was dismissed for number prosecution.
2 filed his separate written statement stating, inter alia, that he was number companycerned with flat No.
Since there was numberscope of future progress with the defendant No.
1 has been declared as a sick unit by BIFR.
1 was number even able to fulfill their minimum and urgent financial obligations and companymitments.
1 had unlawfully sublet a part of the suit premises, i.e., flat No.
The number success companypelled the defendant No.
2 had numberright to remain in possession of the flat No.
The sum of Rs.3,23,000/ shall be paid to the appellant.
As far as question No.
1 did number initiate action at an early stage but in 1993 when the Provident Fund Commissioner made a demand, it moved the writ companyrt and ultimately the matter was settled before this Court.
1 was companycerned, i.e. number user for a period of six months for the purpose it was let out which is a ground under Section 13 1 k of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 for short the Act , the learned trial Judge came to hold that the plea of number user in respect of flat No.
1 was a tenant under the plaintiff on a companysolidated monthly rent of Rs.1075/ .
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
The financial position of defendant No.
1 to take appropriate legal steps to evict the defendant No.
1 in January, 1989 on the understanding that he will companytinue to occupy the flat No.
The respondent shall handover vacant possession of the premises in question to the appellant on a date and time to be fixed by the senior Prothonotary of the High Court of Bombay in the presence of a representative of the Senior Prothonotary who shall record a memorandum signed by the respondent and a representative of the appellant.
2 it is luminous that he was allowed to occupy the premises as an executive by the companypany and thereafter as his dues companyld number be paid to him, he remained in occupation and also tried to become the owner of the premises.
This appeal, by special leave, by the landlord arises out of and is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2010 of the Bombay High Court passed in Civil Revision Application No.
This defendant is ready and willing to pay the rent in respect of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs.
204 was number established but the said plea had been proven as far as flat No.
