- (1.)THESE four petitions are filed by the 15 petitioners the alleged sub - tenants of Defendant No. 1 who are aggrieved by the order of ejectment passed against them by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, I propose to dispose them of by one common judgment. The proceedings arise out of the ejectment suit filed by the respondents against Defendant No. 1 and the petitioners.
(2.)A few facts leading to this litigation are as follows : The suit property comprises of an open plot of land measuring about 1050 square years situate at Mahul Road, Chembur, Greater Bombay. The respondents are the owners of this plot. In February 1954 Respondent No. 1 let out the said open plot of land to Defendant No. 1 Shaikh Hassan Shaikh Razack for his char - coal business. The agreed rent per month was Rs. 100/- and it is said that the lease was for a period of three years. No written document evidencing the lease is placed on the record of these proceedings. But it is admitted that the said lease was in the first instance for a period of 3 years. The rent of Rs. 100/- per month was subsequently reduced to Rs. 80/- per month as a result of proceedings between the parties. It appears that Shaikh Razack put up shop structures on the open plot of land in or about the month of August 1954 and let out the said structures to various sub - tenants. On 25-2-1957 Respondent No. 1 gave a notice to quit to Razack and on the basis of that notice Respondent No. 1 filed a suit on 11-4-1957 seeking the eviction of Razack and some other defendants (those defendants are some of the defendants in these proceedings also) on various grounds. Possession was sought on the ground on non - payment of rent, breach of the terms of tenancy, erection of permanent structures, unlawful sub - letting, illegal profiteering and also on the ground that the plot of land was required reasonably and bona fide for construction of a building. The suit was initially filed only against Defendant No. 1 and the defendants who were alleged to be sub - tenants, were later on impleaded at their own instance. That suit was decreed on 21-7-1960. Defendant No. 1 Razack preferred an appeal and the other defendants also challenged that decree in appeal Court. In all three appeals were filed against the decree in ejectment passed by the trial Court. On 31-8-1961 the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes allowed the appeals and directed the dismissal of the suit. The appellate Bench held that the defendants were in fact sub - tenants of the land. Only one defendants was held to be a sub - tenant of the land. The Court also found that the plaintiff had not established any breach of the terms of the tenancy. The Court further held that the plaintiff had filed to prove profiteering by the tenant; that the structure put up by the tenant was not a permanent structure within the meaning of the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Rent Act and that the plaintiff had failed to prove the premises were required by him reasonably and bona fide for his own occupation after erecting the new building. The Appellate Bench also came to the conclusion that the suit filed on the basis of the quit notice dated 25-2-1957 was premature and the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was held that the lessor had not given one clear month's notice before the institution of the suit.
(3.)ON 21-9-1961 the Respondents gave another notice terminating the tenancy of defendant No. 1 Razack. As the respondents felt that the notice was defective they, by way of abundant caution, gave another notice on 21-11-1961 terminating the tenancy of defendant No. 1 Razack. On 17-2-1962 they filed a suit against Razack claiming possession of the suit premises on various grounds. They alleged that Razack had erected permanent structures without their consent in writing; that he had illegally sub - let portions of the plot to others; that he was profiteering by charging his tenants rent far in excess of the standard rent which he was paying to the Respondents. In addition to these grounds the respondents also sought possession of the premises on the ground that they reasonably and bona fide required the same for erecting a new building. The present suit was first filed against defendant No. 1 and defendants 2 to 11. Later on, at the instance of the plaintiffs, the other defendants were also joined as necessary parties. That is how the suit came to be filed by the respondents against the defendant No. 1 and the present petitioners.