1 cra412-413 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.412 OF 2010 Smt.Sherunnisa d/o Gulamali Purdil through her Power of Attorney Mr.Bashir Ahmed ...Applicant vs. 1 Mohamed Mustafa Talukdar (since deceased through L.Rs.) Mr.Baitulla s/o Mohd.Mustafa Talukdar and others ...Respondents ALONG WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.413 OF 2010 Sherunnisa d/o Gulam Ali Purdil through her power of Attorney Mr.Bashir Ahmed ...Applicant vs. Baitulla s/o Mohd Mustafa Talukdar and others ...Respondents Mr.Ajit Karwande for the applicant Mr.Khan Javed Akhtar for the respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 24,2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. There were two suits filed by the first respondent-plaintiff for possession of the premises bearing Gala nos.13 and 14 more particularly described in the plaints. The revision applications have been preferred by the legal representatives of the 1st defendant for challenging decrees of eviction passed in both the suits. The facts of both the revision applications are to some extent identical. Hence, for the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts of the case in civil revision application no.412 of 2010. 2 cra412-413 2. The suit was filed by the first respondent-plaintiff under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") for possession of the Gala no.13 on the ground of unauthorised and illegal subletting of the suit premises by the original 1st and 2nd defendants who were the tenants in respect of the said suit premises. The allegation in the suit is that the said defendants had unauthorisedly sublet the suit premises to 4th to 6th defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of illegal subletting. An Appeal was preferred by the legal representatives of the original 1st defendant. In appeal, the decree for eviction has been confirmed by the Appeal Bench. In case of the other civil revision application no.413 of 2010, the suit for eviction of Gala no.14 was dismissed and an appeal was preferred by the 1st respondent-plaintiff. In the appeal, the Appellate Court has passed a decree for eviction on the ground of illegal sub-letting. 3 Various submissions have been canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision applicants. The case made out by the plaintiff is that defendants nos.1 to 3 have illegally sublet the suit premises to defendant nos. 4 to 6. The decree is on the ground of subletting. The defence of the defendants was that the defendant nos.4 to 6 were allowed to conduct business of the 1st defendant in the suit premises and the possession is not parted with by the defendant no.1 to 3. 4 The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the possession was parted with by defendant nos.1 to 3. He submitted that though the suit premises, in both the suits are adjoining premises, in case of one premises the 3 cra412-413 Trial Court dismissed the suit. He submitted that a specific case made out by defendant nos. 4 to 6 in the written statement was that they were conducting the business of the deceased defendant no.1 and in absence of any evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to show creation of sub tenancy, a decree for possession could not have been passed. He submitted that by no stretch of imagination, defendant nos. 4 to 6 who were at highest conductors of the business, can be termed as sub tenants. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. The case of the plaintiffs was that defendant nos.4 to 6 were in occupation of the suit premises. The case made out by the defendant nos.1 to 3 is that in fact defendant nos.4 to 6 were doing business in the suit premises in their capacity as conductors of the business. The Appellate Court has made a reference to the stand taken in the written statement and the contention raised that after defendant no.1 left for native place, his business was being carried on by defendant nos.4 to 6. The Court has also noted that in the earlier suit, a stand was taken by the defendant no.4 that he was a tenant in respect of the suit premises. Thus, the plaintiffs established that persons who were strangers and who were not the tenants were in occupation of the suit premises. The appellate Court held that no document was produced on record to show that the defendant no.4 to 6 were appointed as the conductors of business. The certified copy of evidence of the 4th defendant in earlier suit was produced on record in which the said defendant stated that he himself along with defendant no.5 and 6 were carrying on their own business in the Gala no.14. After considering all the aforesaid aspects, the appellate Court has drawn an inference that the defendant no.4 to 6 were carrying on their own business in the suit premises. The appellate 4 cra412-413 Court disbelieved the evidence of the Constituted attorney of the defendant nos. 2 and 3.Therefore, the defendant nos. 4 to 7 who were strangers were held to be illegal sub tenants. 6 In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court which is based on appreciation of evidence, no case for interference is made out with the decree for eviction passed on the ground of unauthorised subletting. Revision applications are accordingly rejected. Ad-interim relief granted earlier will continue to operate for a period of 12 weeks from today. JUDGE