vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.437 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.437 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.437 OF 2008 Vijay D. Rai ... Applicant V/s. Rallis India Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.V.A. Thorat with Ajay Panicker for Applicant Mr.D.J. Khambata with Mr.S.V. Doijode and Ms.F.J. Thakkar for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JULY 24, 2008 JULY 24, 2008 JULY 24, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Civil Revision Application has been filed challenging the order passed by the Small Causes Court in L.E. & C. Suit No.271/286 of 2001 and the order of the appellate Court passed in Appeal No.581 of 2006 confirming the order of the trial Court. Both the Courts below have held that the applicant is not entitled to continue in possession of the premises and have therefore passed a decree for eviction of the applicant. 2. The main contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter under the provisions of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. It is submitted that the applicant was in possession of the : 2 : premises, not as a licencee but as a service tenant, and therefore, a suit for eviction ought to have been filed u/s 16(1)(f) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It is then submitted that in any event the applicant has arrived at an agreement for purchase of the tenament with the head landlord who is R.J. Sethna and till the conditions of sale were fulfilled, the applicant was to continue as a tenant of Mr.Sethna. 3. In my opinion, these submissions are contradictory in nature. If the applicant claims that he was in occupation as a service tenant and, therefore, the Small Causes Court did not have to entertain the suit under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act and that it ought to have been decided only under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, then the submission that the applicant was a tenant of the head landlord is self defeating. 4. There can be no doubt from the material on record that this was a gratuitous licence given to the applicant who was employed as the Managing Director of the respondent company. He resigned from that Company on 9.5.2000. Admittedly no rent was paid by him for occupying these premises and, therefore, there could never have been any question of him being a tenant or service tenant of the respondent company. As held by : 3 : the Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Banerjee v/s. Lilabati Chakraborty, (1987) 4 SCC 161 (1987) 4 SCC 161 (1987) 4 SCC 161 and by this Court in the case of Chinnupashabi v/s. Fatesingh Shikshan Sanstha & Its trustees, AIR 1999 BOMBAY 383, AIR 1999 BOMBAY 383, AIR 1999 BOMBAY 383, the rent envisaged under the Rent Act must be paid in cash. The services rendered by employee in lieu of the right to occupy the premises cannot amount to the receipt of rent by the Respondent under the Rent Act. In fact, the Supreme Court in Dipak Banerjee (supra), has observed that the concept of services in lieu of rent is a concept which cannot be accepted in urban areas. The Supreme Court has held that it defeats the very purpose for whcih the rent is claimed as well as the services rendered. 5. Apart from this, in the case of Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha vs. Manharbala Jeram Damodar, Writ Petition No.148 of 2004 decided on 10.7.2007, the full bench of this Court has held that the term licencee under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act must be given the widest possible meaning and all suits between the landlord and the tenant or the licensor and licencee under the Rent Act or Presidency Small Causes Courts Act must be tried under one roof. The Full Bench has held that even in the case of a gratuitous licencee, a suit would be maintainable before the Small Causes Court u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act; the : 4 : licensor need not approach the civil court for evicting a gratuitous licencee. 6. In my opinion, therefore, the suit had rightly been filed in the Small Causes Court. The Court has committed no error in exercising its jurisdiction u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. 7. On merits, in my opinion, both the Courts below have considered all the facts relating to the present case in the proper perspective. The applicant herein has resigned from service on 9.5.2000 and is holding on to the premises which were allotted to him when he was appointed as the Managing DIrector of the company, till today. 8. In such circumstances, the revision application fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Mr.Thorat appearing for the applicant, submits that the applicant be permitted to continue in the premises for a period of three months. Mr.Khambata appearing for the Company opposes this application as the company has to pay a huge amount to the head landlord for occupying the premises. The eviction decree shall not be executed for a period of four weeks from today. In the meantime, the applicant shall not : 5 : part with the possession or create any third party right or induct any third party in the suit premises.