: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2009 Rishipal Badal Kalliya .. Applicant V/s. Vidhu V. Nevatia & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.J. Jadhav for the Applicant. Ms. Rekha Shukla for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicant has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below. The applicant was employed as a Personal Chauffer with one Vimalnayan Nevatia, who was the father of respondent No.1 and husband of respondent No.2. After the death of Vimalnayan Nevatia, the services of the applicant were terminated and he was requested to vacate the premises licensed to him for residence. Since the applicant did not vacate the premises despite the letter dated 11th March, 1985 issued to him, the respondents herein filed a Suit before the Small : 2 : Causes Court, Bombay, for eviction. The Small Causes Court has held that the plaintiffs, i.e. the respondents herein, have proved that the defendant- applicant was their licensee and that they had terminated the license legally. The Small Causes Court also held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. Further it has been held that the defendant had failed to prove that he was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises. The Court has concluded thereby that the defendant was liable to be evicted and to pay the charges of the suit premises @ Rs.100/- per month towards mesne profit for occupying the suit premises from the date of filing of the Suit i.e. 8th June, 1986 till recovery of the possession. This order has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. 2. The main contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that this was a service tenancy and, therefore, it was the Small Causes Court acting under the Rent Act which would have jurisdiction and not the Hon’ble Presidency of the Small Causes : 3 : Court. It is submitted that the letter dated 11th March, 1985 reflects the fact that the applicant was employed by a Company and, therefore, obviously he would have been in occupation of the suit premises as a service tenant. All these submissions have been considered by both the Courts below. I do not find any error in the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. Merely because the name of the Company has been mentioned in the aforesaid letter, it does not make any difference to the matter. All that has been stated in the letter is that the applicant was employed as a Personal Chauffer of Vimalnayan Nevatia who was then the Chief Executive of M/s. Dagger Master Tools Industries Ltd. However, this does not make the applicant an employee of M/s. Dagger Master Tools Industries Ltd. 3. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. 4. On the application made by the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, the decree shall not be executed for a period of three months from today : 4 : on the usual undertaking being furnished to this Court by the applicant and all other adult persons in his family within a period of two weeks from today. .......