- (1.) This appeal arises from the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 983 of 1972 setting aside the order made by the appellate officer, (the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court Bombay) under section 105-F of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ( 'the Act'), whereby he allowed the appellant's appeal against the order of eviction made against it under section 105-B of the Act by the enquiry officer, acting in terms of section 68 of the Act as a delegate of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the first respondent, ("the Corporation").
(2.) By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the order of eviction made against the appellant, the principal occupant of two godowns belonging to the Corporation. The original occupant of the godowns, Glenfield & Co., had on 1-10-1963 granted to the appellant a licence in respect of these premises and subsequently by a deed of assignment dated 13-8-1966 assigned all its rights, title and interest in the premises in favour of the appellant. The appellant had in the meantime by agreement dated 27-3-1964 permitted the second respondent to store goods in the premises. The appellant thereafter requested the Corporation to recognise it as the principal occupant of the premises by means of a formal agreement. This request was at first rejected by the Corporation on the ground that Ghatge & Patil (Transport) Pvt. Ltd., the second respondent, had been already in occupation of the premises. Subsequently the Corporation examined the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 27-3-1964 (as renewed from time to time) upon which the second respondent was allowed to occupy the premises, and after satisfying itself as to those terms, the Corporation transferred the occupancy right from Glenfield & Co. to the appellant on the appellant executing a formal agreement dated 17-6-1967. The Corporation was thus fully aware of the terms and conditions of occupation of the premises by the second respondent, and, with the full knowledge of those terms, the appellant was recorded in the Corporation's books as the principal occupant in the place of Glenfield & Co. The second respondent was thus understood and accepted by the Corporation to be in occupation of the premises under the appellant. All this was in 1967.
(3.) A notice dated 25-7-1969 terminating tenancy purportedly in terms of the agreement dated 17-6-1967 was served on the appellant. This was followed by an enquiry under the Act which commenced in 1970 and resulted in the order of eviction dated 6-1-1971. The order of eviction refers to the appellant as the principal tenant and the second respondent as a sub-tenant. The enquiry officer, acting as a delegate in terms of section 68 and exercising the power of the Commissioner under section 105-B, ordered eviction of the appellant on the ground of sub-letting the premises. She held that the appellant had sub-let the premises contrary to the terms or conditions of occupation and had thus become an unauthorised occupant liable to be evicted from the premises.;