- (1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal against a decree passed in suit No.2483 of 1962, which came to be dismissed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Bombay by order dated 17/18.8.1978. The suit was for possession of a particular room which has been described as eastern room situated in the premises which are on the second floor of Neelam Mansion, Lamington Road, Bombay-4, and shown in red ink and marked "A" in the rough sketch map attached to the plaint. This suit was tagged along with another suit filed by the same plaintiffs bearing No. 2484 of 1962 in which the present Defendant was arraigned as Defendant No.3 and one Mr.Patkar was Defendant No.1 who died during the pendency of the said suit and his heirs were brought on record. The 2nd Defendant in that suit was M/s. Brindavan pictures, a firm carrying on business at the said premises and the present Defendant was added in that suit at a later stage. The two suits were tried together and by consent of the learned Advocates representing the parties common evidence was recorded in the two suits. Suit No. 2484 of 1962 was returned to the two plaintiff for presentation to proper Court.
(2.) THE dispute in that suit related to the south-western room in the same premises and in this suit and the consequent appeal we are not concerned with that suit as the fact of this suit are different although the eastern room of which possession is claimed in this suit is a part of the same premises. The plaintiffs are a Private Limited company carrying on business of financing and production and distribution of films. The plaintiffs claim to be a sub-tenant in the premises situated on the second floor as described above and pay monthly rent of Rs. 107.10 ps. per month directly to the landlord. It is interesting to note that the plaintiffs claim to be the Sub-tenant of one Patkar but it is an admitted fact that the rent receipt has been issued in the name of one Bhopatkar and it appears that even after he left the premises and although Pandurang Ramchandra Patkar came into exclusive possession thereof, the rent receipt continued to be issued in the name of Mr. Bhopatkar.
(3.) THE plaintiffs case in brief, so far as the present suit is concerned, is that the Defendant Premji Vora was one of the Directors of the plaintiffs company. There were two other directors, namely one Mr. Shivram Purohit, P.W. 1 and one Mr. Trivedi. The Defendant was holding 250 shares of the company and was actively concerned with the conduct of the business of the company. In order to ensure that the routine business of the plaintiffs company is looked after and telephone calls received at odd hours are also attended to promptly, the Defendant was asked to occupy a portion of the premises and the present suit relates to the said portion shown in red ink and marked "A" in the sketch map annexed to the plaint. The status of the Defendant was of a licensee. The Defendant was not at any time required to pay anything for the occupation of the suit premises as he was also to occupying the same being a Director of the company and for the purpose of attending urgent works, telephone calls etc.;