February 16.
The appellant then went in revision to the High Court of Bombay, but it affirmed the order of ejectment.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 10, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in C. R. Application No.
The defence of the appellant was that under the terms of the lease he had the right to sub let the premises.
153 of 1949.
The submission of the appellant was that the word sub tenant should be in the plural and of the respondent that it should be in the singular but whether it is in the singular or plural it does number make any difference to the principal argument advanced in this Court.
On appeal the Assistant Judge at Thana reversed the decree holding that s. 15 of the Act companypletely prohibited sub letting and under s. 13 1 e of the Act the landlord bad the right to evict the tenant on account of sub letting.
445 on account of rent remaining due and dismissed the respondents suit for ejectment.
He also held that the appellant did number occupy the premises on the same terms and companyditions on which he occupied the old premises in Fida Ali Villa.
The parties were number agreed as to the companyrectness of the translation of this term.
This building was purchased by the respondent who gave numberice to the appellant to vacate, as he wanted to companystruct a new building on the site of the old building.
On April 20, 1949, the respondent brought a suit for ejectment on the ground of number payment of rent and sub letting of the premises.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The 4th, a Bohri, was fixed up by the respondent in some other place.
The facts giving rise to this litigation shortly stated are that the appellant was a tenant for about 20 years in the premises known as Fida Ali Villa in Kalyan.
He passed a decree for Rs.
Although it was disputed, the companyrts below have found that they occupied the same position qua the appellant.
The terms of the lease are companytained in a document dated June 7,1948, which is a letter in Marathi written by the respondent to the appellant and companytains the following terms as to sub tenancy In the shops in the old chawl which are with you you have kept sub tenants.
The trial Court held that subletting was lawful in spite of s. 15 of Bombay Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 Bom.
674 of 1957.
57 of 1947 .
The appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
The appellant had four sub tenants, three of them also shifted to the new premises which were let to the appellant by the respondent.
On January 3, 1949, the respondent gave numberice to the defendant to vacate the premises on the ground of numberpayment of rent and sub letting which it was alleged had resulted in the termination of the tenancy.
97 of 1952, against the judgment and decree dated January 31, 1952, of the Court of the Civil Judge, J. D. Kalyan, in Suit No.
The tenant who was the defendant in the suit is the appellant and the landlord who was the plaintiff is the respondent.
The appellant agreed to vacate and the respondent let to him a portion of his new building which was riot far from Fida Ali Villa .
The trial Court found that they were let on June 1, 1948.
1213 of 1953, arising out of the judgment and decree dated April 25, 1953, of the Assistant Judge, Thana, in C. A. No.
J. Umrigar, Ratnaparkhi Anant Govind and W. P. Oka, for the respondent.
Purshottam Tricumdas, Rameshwar Nath and S. N. Andley, for the appellant.
There was some dispute as to the date when these new premises were let to the appellant, the appellant alleging that they were let on July 1, 1948, and the respondent that they were let on June 1, 1948.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay companyfirming the order of ejectment passed by the Assistant Judge, Thana.
