-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 113 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 113 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 113 OF 2009 Smt. Hansa Baburao Shinde .. Applicant. (Org.Defendant no.1) V/s. 1. Dhirajlal D. Shah & Others .. Respondents. 2. Smt. Lalita Dhirajlal Shah (Nos.1 & 2 Org. 3. Limbed Distributors. plaintiffs.) --- Mr. Appasaheb S. Desai for the Applicant. Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar with Mr. R.Dave i/by N.N.Vaishanava & Co. for the Respondents nos. 1 to 3. ---- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 17th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 17th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 17th APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. A.S.Desai, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 2. This is a tenant’s petition filed under the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court granted decree of eviction in favour of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 landlords on the ground that the applicant/defendant has unlawfully sublet the demised suit premises to respondent no.3. This decree though challenged by the applicant by filing the appeal -: 2 :- before the Bench of the Small Causes Court, the same was confirmed. 3. The applicant in her cross-examination admitted that there are 20 to 25 Sewing Machines in the suit premises for some period. The photographs at Exh.‘H-2’ further reveals that there is Sine Board about repairing and selling of Sewing Machines displayed at the suit premises. There is no dispute that the applicant’s business is manufacturing of wooden box. It was the specific case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2- landlords that the applicant had inducted the respondent no.3 in the suit premises without their prior permission. Initially defence was taken by the applicant that the respondent no.2 is not a subtenant and in fact she is running a business of manufacturing boxes in the suit premises in the partnership with the respondent no.3. The applicant could not produce evidence on record to substantiate her contention that the respondent no.3 is doing partnership business with her. The stand/defence initially taken by the applicant was subsequently changed and in the evidence it was contended that the respondent no.3 being the friend of the applicant’s husband used to visit the suit premises occasionally for giving guidance. 4. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 also produced documents at Exh.‘8’. These documents are in the form of leave and -: 3 :- licence agreements. The said documents are executed by the applicant/ defendant no.1’s husband and the applicant herself in favour of the respondent no.3. These documents ex-facie shows that the applicant has parted with the part of the suit premises exclusively to the respondent no.3. It is true that these documents at Exh.‘8’ are not registered. However, in my considered view the same can be used for collateral purpose, namely, to show that the applicant has handed over exclusive possession of part of the suit premises to the respondent no.3. 5. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that the exclusive possession of the part of the premises was given to the respondent no.3. He also relied upon the Apex Court decisions in the case of Delhi Delhi Delhi Stationers and tationers and tationers and Printers vs. Rajendra Kumar, Printers vs. Rajendra Kumar, Printers vs. Rajendra Kumar, reported in (1990) 2 S.C.C.331 and in the case of Nirmal Kanta (dead) Nirmal Kanta (dead) Nirmal Kanta (dead) through hrough hrough LRs. vs. Ashok Kumar and another, LRs. vs. Ashok Kumar and another, LRs. vs. Ashok Kumar and another, reported in (2008) 7 S.C.C.722. There is no dispute about the propositions laid down by the Honourable Apex Court that landlord must prove transfer of exclusive possession by tenant to sub-tenant. However, in the present case I have found that exclusive possession of a part of the demises premises was given to the respondent no.3 by the applicant without prior permission of the landlord. Similar finding of fact is -: 4 :- recorded by the both the courts below. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point out that above finding is contrary to the evidence on record. 6. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not find any substance in this Civil Revision Application and the same is dismissed as such. 7. At this stage, Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the applicant seeks some time to vacate the suit premises. Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the respondents has no objection if reasonable time is granted. In view of the concession given by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, the applicant is granted time of three months to vacate the suit premises subject to filing an usual undertaking in this court within the period of two weeks from today. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....