KRISHNAJI RAMJI VINARKAR Vs. SHAMSUNDER JAGANNATH SHUKLA
LAWS(BOM)-1954-3-8
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 08,1954

KRISHNAJI RAMJI VINARKAR Appellant
VERSUS
SHAMSUNDER JAGANNATH SHUKLA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MIRABELLE HOTEL CO PVT LTD VS. MANU SUBEDAR [LAWS(BOM)-1969-8-7] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The opponent in this revision application filed ejectment proceedings against the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. It was the case of the opponent that the petitioner was his licensee, and that eventhough possession was demanded the petitioner failed to vacate and deliver possession of room No. 17 In the Bandulwala Chawl No. 3, Sayani Road, Bombay; and hence the proceedings.
(2.)The petitioner was duly served with the process of the Court of Small Causes, but he did not file any defences on the date fixed for hearing and applied for an adjournment. No adjournment was however granted, and the ejectment proceedings were heard by the Court. On consideration of the evidence the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a licensee of the opponent and that the license was revoked, and the Court passed an order against the petitioner directing him to vacate and deliver possesion within six months from the date of the order. Against that order an appeal was filed before the appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes on the assumption that the proceedings were 'a suit' under Section 28 of the Bombay Act 57 of 1947. But that appeal was rejected on the ground that the appellate Bench had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The petitioner has come to this Court in revision against the order passed by the Court of first instance as well as the order passed by the appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay.
(3.)On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that the petitioner is a sub-tenant of room No. 17 in Bandulwala Chawl, Sayani Road, Bombay, and he is entitled to protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 57 of 1947, and that the opponent is not entitled to obtain an order in ejectment against him toy filing proceedings under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. It has to be noted however that no such contention was raised In the Court of first instance. The Court of first Instance on evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a licensee, and on that footing passed an order against the petitioner calling upon him to vacate and deliver, possession.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.