1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7367 OF 2007 1.Kirtikumar Vallabhdas & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.Vasant Pranvallabh & ors. ...Respondents. And Bhanuben Harish Thakkar ...Non applicant. --- Mr.Navin Parekh i/b. Lalit V. Jain, for Petitioners. Mr.P.K.Dhakhephalkar i/b. Chandrakant Chavan, for Respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 present in person. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 11th JANUARY,2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioners who were the tenants challenge the concurrent findings 2 recorded by both the Courts below holding that the petitioners have unlawfully sublet the premises. Perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court shows that the appellate Court has appreciated the evidence on record and has held that there is subletting of the premises after 1.2.1973. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners relying on the provisions of Section 22 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act,1947 submits that information was sought from the tenant only whether the tenant has sublet the premises, and therefore, the fact that a paying guest was kept was not disclosed. According to him, only from that reply an inference cannot be drawn that there was subletting after 1.2.1973. In my opinion, apart from the evidence on record if one goes by the case of the tenant in the written statement, no fault can be found with the decree that has been passed. According to petitioner one Harish Thakkar was kept as a paying guest in the premises, and therefore, as he was a paying guest it does not amount to subletting. Perusal of paragraph (6) of the written statement shows that the alleged paying guest was given one of 3 the rooms and the defendant no.1 in the year 1972 had asked that paying guest to deliver the vacant possession of the room to the defendant no.1. Perusal of the definition of the term “licensee” and the term “paying guest” appearing in the Bombay Rent Act shows that a paying guest cannot be in possession of any specific portion of the tenanted premises and the paying guest is never in possession of the premises. From the evidence on record, it appears that the alleged paying guest was in actual and physical possession of a definite portion of the tenanted premises, and therefore, he cannot be termed as “paying guest”. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, considering the limited jurisdiction that this Court possesses, no interference with the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the Courts below is warranted. In my opinion, the petition therefore, cannot be entertained. Hence, it is rejected. 2. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, it is directed that despite rejection of the petition, the decree passed 4 in favour of the respondents shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today subject to the condition that within a period of one week from today, the petitioners file an undertaking in this Court that in case the petitioners are not able to secure suitable orders from the higher Court either staying or setting aside the decree passed in favour of the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today, they will hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents. If the undertaking is not filed within one week from today, the respondents shall be free to execute the decree. ---