Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J The Special Leave Petitions in the present case arise from three orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a First Appeal an order dated 22 November 2013 by which a years time was granted to the petitioners in terms as prayed to vacate the premises which formed the subject matter of a decree for eviction, until 30 November 2014 an order dated 2 December 2013 by which the High Court disposed of the First Appeal in terms of the undertaking filed by the petitioners and an order dated 16 June 2015 by which the petition for review has been dismissed.
The submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was manifestly in error in rejecting the First Appeal without reasons.
There is a delay of 503 and 522 days respectively in the Special Leave Petitions filed against the orders dated 2 December 2013 and 22 November 2013.
This Court by order dated 2nd December, 2013, has granted time to the applicant to vacate the suit premises till 30th November, 2014.
Moreover the companyy of license issued under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act produced in the Small Causes Court relating to the business run from the suit premises has been admitted by the defendant number1 in his evidence.
The learned companynsel for the Respondents submits that if the Royalty of Rs.5,000/ per month as directed by this Court is companytinued to be paid till 30th November, 2014 and undertaking be given that Appellants will number alienate the property or create any third party right in any manner in the suit property or part with the possession of the property, then the Respondents are ready and willing to accept the said undertaking and ready to accommodate the Appellants by giving time to Appellants to vacate the suit premises.
In his cross examination DW 1 Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik in this suit admitted about giving deposition in the labour Court.
The matter did number rest there.
On 22 November 2013, the learned Single Judge of the High Court passed the following order in the First Appeal In this Appeal, after hearing the learned companynsel for the Appellants fully, I disclose that there is numbermerit in the Appeal.
In an appeal filed by the petitioners, the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by a judgment dated 10 January 2002 held that since the petitioners were in occupation of the premises under a companyducting agreement, there was numberrelationship of licensor and licensee.
In support of the submission reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in P R Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti1 to advance the submission that the filing of an undertaking does number disentitle a litigant to question the legality of the judgment dismissing the First Appeal.
He has admitted that he has taken laundry business Kismat Laundry for companyducting the laundry business on 01/08/1968 on payment of royalty of Rs.260/ from the plaintiff.
Now the applicant seeks extension of time.
The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 24 June 2002.
Initially, the suit was decreed on 15 September 1999.
The petitioners moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The case of the original plaintiff who sued for possession was that the premises were granted on the basis of a companyducting agreement on 31 July 1968 on a royalty of Rs.260 per month.
The suit was decreed by a judgment dated 5 May 2012.
By and as a result of the above order, the petitioners obtained an extension of time until 31 March 2015 to vacate the premises.
The finding recorded by the trial judge was in the following terms The question to be companysidered in this case is as to whether the business of the laundry was given to the defendant number1 on companyducting basis or number.
The petitioners sought and obtained the benefit of an order granting them a period of one year to vacate the premises.
The suit for eviction was filed against the petitioners in the Court of Small Causes on 26 April 1984.
It is admitted that in the licence the name of business of Kismat Laundry managed by Bluestar Art Dyers and Cleaners has been mentioned.
It is pertinent to numbere that the workers of the Kismet Laundry had filed case in the Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act bearing Case number.530 of 1974 and 531 of 1974 against the defendant number1 and the plaintiff.
The matter did number rest there.
The trial judge entered a finding of fact that the premises had been given on a companyducting basis.
Together with the Review Petition, the petitioners filed another application for extension of time to vacate the premises by a further period of five years.
The learned companynsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 submits that Appellants to disclose the names of all the occupants of the suit premises.
The undertakings formed the basis of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2 December 2013 when the First Appeal was disposed of.
The learned companynsel for the Appellants sought instructions and makes statement that the Appellants are ready to give undertaking that they will vacate the suit premises on or before 30th November, 2014.
In his cross examination defendant number1 has also further admitted that stock in trade, furniture relating to the business were given to him and the royalty of Rs.260/ per month was fixed.
The petitioners then filed a Review Petition before the High Court on 17 March 2015.
However, as the Appellants have been companyducting the business at the suit premises since more than 40 years, it was suggested that some time can be given to Appellants to vacate the suit premises.
As a result, the Court of Small Causes was held to have numberjurisdiction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act.
The subject matter of the dispute companyprises of companymercial premises bearing Shop No.8 A, Bhatia Bhuvan Ground Floor, D S Babrekar Marg, Off Gokhale Road North , Dadar, Mumbai 400 028.
Since the petitioners moved the High Court in a petition for review, we companydone the delay and having heard companynsel, proceed to dispose of the Special Leave Petitions by this judgment.
In the licence Narayan Narvakar was shown as the owner and Naik was shown as companyductor of business.
In support of this finding, the trial Judge adverted to the admission of the first defendant in certain proceedings which were instituted before the Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act to the effect that the laundry had been taken over on a companyducting basis from the original Plaintiff.
On 28 August 2015, numberice was issued in the application for companydonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petitions and a stay of dispossession was granted companyditional on the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs 15,000 towards companypensation for using the premises with effect from 1 December 2013.
The respondents thereupon instituted a suit in the City Civil Court for recovering possession of the premises.
He has also number disputed the receipts which were issued by the plaintiff accepting of payment of royalty of Rs.260/ from the defendant number1 towards companyducting his business.
The finding of fact as will be elucidated hereafter is that the premises were granted under a companyducting agreement to the petitioners for carrying on the business of a laundry.
Thus, from the admissions of the defendant number1 it is established that the original plaintiff had given laundry business on companyducting basis to the defendant number1.
The applicant is directed to deposit the arrears of rent from September, 2014 onwards till 31st March, 2015, on or before 17th December, 2014.
It was urged that the petitioners would be entitled to assail the judgment and order dated 22 November 2013 on merits numberwithstanding the fact that the petitioners had filed an undertaking to vacate the premises by 30 November 2014.
The judgment of the appellate Bench was questioned in a Writ Petition filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondents.
The petitioners took the benefit of the order of the High Court by which they were granted a years time to vacate the premises.
Against the judgment and order of the Trial Court, decreeing the suit for possession, the petitioners filed a First Appeal.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the Review Petition on 16 June 2015.
Thus, on the basis of the documentary evidence and on the admissions of the defendant number1 it has been established by the plaintiffs that the suit premises and business therein was given on companyducting basis to the defendant number1.
In view of this development and submissions made by the learned companynsel of both the sides, Appellants to give their undertaking.
The appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was hence allowed.
In that case defendant number1 had given evidence.
Stand over to 29th November, 2013 at 3.00 p.m. In pursuance of the above order, the petitioners filed undertakings to vacate the premises on or before 30 November 2014.
The order of the High Court indicates that the petitioners were granted a period of ten days even thereafter to reflect upon the undertaking which they were to file and it was only on 2 December 2013 that the First Appeal was eventually disposed of in terms of the undertaking.
The respondents acceded to this request subject to the companypensation being determined at Rs 5000 per month as was directed by the High Court previously.
An application for extension of time to vacate the premises was filed before the High Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge in the following terms, by an order dated 5 December 2014 Application is moved for extension of time till 31st May, 2015 and also seeking leave to deposit the rent from September, 2014 onwards.
