Balkrishna Gopal Bhadekar vs Shereman''s Private Ltd.

D.K. Deshmukh, J.—By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 24-11 -1986 passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 203 of 1986 passed by the Single Judge of the respondents challenging the order dated 10.2.1986. That appeal was filed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay in R.A.E. Suit No. 1546/5300 of 1974. That suit was filed by the respondents claiming a declaration that the respondents are protected licensees/tenants of the suit premises. The trial Court, however, found on the basis of the material on record that the plaintiffs/respondents are the sub-tenants of the suit premises. The trial Court however, found that they were unlawful sub-tenants of the suit premises and, therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

In the appeal filed by the plaintiffs respondents the Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendant amounts to a sub-tenancy. However, in view of the amendment incorporated in the Bombay Rent Act, by incorporation of section 15-A, the Court held that as sub-tenants or licensees possession of the plaintiff is protected and therefore, issued a declaration to that effect.

In this petition filed by the defendant therefore, it is the order of the Appellate Court which is challenged. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is clear that the finding that the plaintiffs respondents are sub-tenants of the suit premises is concurrently recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any manifest error of law in the finding of sub-tenancy recorded by the Courts below.

Now so far as the question of this sub-tenancy being lawful is concerned, by amendment in the Bombay Rent Act, by Maharashtra Act No. 18 of 1987 it is declared that sub-tenancies created before 1973 and where the sub-tenant was on the premises from 1.2.1973 the sub-tenancy is deemed to be lawful and, therefore, a decree either against the tenant or the sub-tenant cannot be passed u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act. In the face of the concurrent finding regarding the sub-tenancy and the amendments incorporated in the Bombay Rent Act, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Courts below.

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.