PANDURANG SHIVARAM NARVEKAR Vs. HANSA D SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the original respondent in the proceedings initiated by Dinanath Singh in the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Ejectment Application No. 547 of 1970.

(2.) Dinanath Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and his heirs have been brought on the record who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this petition. In the judgement application it was contended that the suit premises consisting of a room, Shop No. 9, situate in Chawl at Swami Vivekanand Road, Jogeshwari (West), Bombay 400 006. It was contended in the said application that the petitioner herein was a licensee of the said premises and the licence agreement was executed in June 1967. The licensee was to pay Rs. 40/- per month. The agreement of leave and licence of June 1967 was for a period of 11 months and thereafter the petitioner herein continued to be the licensee for a further period of two years. There is no dispute that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited by the petitioner under the agreement of leave and licence of June 1967. The petitioner herein was to pay to the licensor a further sum of Rs. 500/-. The licensor by a notice dated November 20, 1969, revoked the licence of the petitioner herein, and thereafter filed the aforesaid proceedings under section 41 of the Bombay Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. The respondents resisted the said application. He denied that he was a licensee. He also denied that he had executed any leave and licence in favour of the said Dinanath Singh. The petitioner further contended that the alleged agreement of leave and licence has been obtained by misrepresentation, coercion and by practising fraud upon him. The petitioner set up a plea that he is the tenant of the suit premises from one Ramdhin Balgovind Singh, the uncle of the deceased Dinanath Singh, and there is a Regular Civil Suit pending in respect of the suit premises between Dinanath Singh and Ramdhin Singh.

(3.) The matter came before the Small Cause Court on November 13, 1972 for hearing. The petitioners Advocate Shri Nagori withdrew his appearance on the ground that the petitioner wanted to engage another Advocate, and the said oral application of Nagori was granted and he was allowed to withdraw his appearance. Then the petitioner applied for adjournment on the ground that he wanted to engage another Advocate. However, the said oral request was rejected by the trial Court, and as the Court refused to adjourn the case, evidence to the respondents was recorded, and it appears that some questions were put to the petitioner and his statement was also recorded on the same day. Thus, the entire trial seems to have been concluded on November 13, 1972. The learned Judge of the trial Court disposed of that application on the same day by judgment and order directing the petitioner to vacate the suit premises on or before January 30, 1973. The petitioner thereafter feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court preferred an appeal to the Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay bearing Appeal No. 634/E of 1972. The said appeal was heard by two Judges of the Small Causes Court and they confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court by judgment and order dated September 27, 1973. Against the said judgment and order of the Appellate Court, the present Special Civil Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.