1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.306 OF 2007 M/s.Shankarlal & Sons Masalawala ..Applicants & anr. V/s. M/s.B.M.Hodiwalla & Sons & ors ..Respondents Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Rajesh Patil, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.Chandrakant Chavan, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is directed against the Judgment and Order of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay delivered on 2nd April, 2002, whereby he ordered the Obstructionists to handover possession of the suit premises, rejecting their claim to be entitled to obstruct the execution of the decree. This Judgment was carried in Appeal which was dismissed by the Bench of Small Causes Court by Order dated 1st April, 2005. 2 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. In this case, the premises were given on lease to the decree holders M/s.B.M.Hodiwalla & Sons. M/s.B.M.Hodiwalla & Sons inducted Gulabrao and Prataprao in the premises on leave and licence agreement. M/s.B.M.Hodiwalla & Sons had filed suit No. 643/5222 of 1963 against Gulabrao and Prataprao. Landlords of M/s.B.M.Hodiwalla & Sons filed suit No.638/5257 of 1964 which was decreed ex-parte on 1st October, 1965. Execution of the ex-parte decree obtained by Landlords of M/s.B.M.Hodiwalla & Sons was obstructed by Gulabrao and Prataprao on 9th July, 1968. Gulabrao and Prataprao inducted the obstructionists M/s.Shankarrao & Sons on 1st December, 1968. But this decree came to be set aside and ultimately suit was dismissed on 14th March, 1969 as per the Consent Terms filed 3 by parties. The suit against Gulabrao and Prataprao itself was decreed on 19th June, 1969. According to the obstructionists, Gulabrao and Prataprao re-newed the licence on 10th November, 1971, after receiving some additional premium. The decree against Gulabrao and Prataprao was maintained right up to the Supreme Court and now has been put in execution by decree holders in which the obstructionists have raised an obstruction. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the Applicants, since the Applicants were already on the premises, the decree holder should not have continued the suit as well as further proceedings without joining them as parties. He further submits that irrespective of what happened between M/s.B.M.Hodiwalla & Sons and Gulabrao & Prataprao, the Applicants had a valid licence from Gulabrao & Prataprao to use the property as on 1st February, 1973 and therefore, their obstructions should have 4 been upheld by the executing Court. 5. The learned Judges of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes have properly dealt with the issue in paragraph 21 onwards of the Judgment. They have rightly held that when in the year 1963 the suit was filed against Gulabrao & Prataprao, their right to possession came to an end, as they were mere licencees. There was no question of Gulabrao & Prataprao having any right to induct the Applicants as licencees in the year 1968. The Courts have rightly held that even if it is taken that Gulabrao & Prataprao had inducted the Applicants as licencees for 11 months in any case, it would have come to an end on 31st October, 1969. Thereafter, there was absolutely no warrant to join them in the suit. It is the Applicants' own case that a fresh licence was given in the year 1971. Such licence could not at all has been given after 19th June, 1969 when M/s.B.M.Hodiwalla & 5 Sons's suit against Gulabrao & Prataprao was already decreed. Thus, howsoever viewed the Applicants could not have sustained their claim to the possession of the properties. 6. In the year 1963, when the suit was filed against Gulabrao & Prataprao, who were mere licencees, had no protection of the Rent Act, and the moment suit was filed, the licence stood revoked. Therefore, right from the year 1963 onwards, Gulabrao & Prataprao did not have any right to induct any one, and, in any case, after 19th June, 1969 when the suit was decreed, they could not have created any right or licence in favour of the Applicants. 7. In view of this, it cannot be said that the Courts below have erred in holding that the Applicants had no right to obstruct execution of the decree. 6 8. Civil Revision Application is, therefore, rejected. 9. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Applicants the decree may not be put to the execution for a period of six weeks subject to the Applicants' furnishing usual undertaking within a period of one week. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)