IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 418 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- BB AGNIHOTRI Versus MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR JR SHAH for the petitioner MR AV TRIVEDI for MR AC GANDHI for the Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of Decision: 29/03/2000 C.A.V.JUDGMENT #. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. #. Challenge has been made by this civil revision application by the petitioner to the order of the Small Causes Court No.11 in PSRP No.12/85 dated 4.2.1992 by which the application of the otherside was came to be allowed and the warrant was issued for the possession of the disputed property against the petitioner. Only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application before the Small Causes Court was not maintainable as the petitioner was a tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a reference to the provisions of Section 13(1)(f) of the Bombay Rent Act in support of his contention. Section 13(1)(f) reads as under.: "If the premises are let to a tenant for use as a residence in consequence of his being in service of the landlord and such a tenant has ceased to be in such service, it is also a ground for eviction. This clause refers to an occupation by a servant qua tenant, whether by way of a remuneration or a part payment of services or whether paying rent or not. It is not necessary, so far as this clause is concerned, that his occupation should be ancillary or subservient to the performance of his services." #. The court below has recorded a finding of fact that it is a case where the petitioner being in employment of the respondent - company was given the suit premises for residence so long as he continues in its service. It was a case of licence. These findings of fact recorded by the learned court below do not suffer from any perversity nor same can be termed arbitrary. It is an admitted case that the petitioner was employed with the respondent company. It is not the case where any tenancy has been created. The petitioner failed to produce any document which creates any tenancy right of his in the disputed premises. It is a case where the employer has given premises to its employee and he can retain it so long as he continued in the employment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from the employment of the respondent - company. After his retirement from the service of the company, he has no right whatsoever to continue in possession of the disputed premises. The application filed by the opponent for warrant of possession was perfectly legal and justified. Otherwise also, if we go by the provisions of section 13(1)(f) of the Act aforesaid, technically the petitioner may be correct, but in substance he has no case Even, after his retirement, he cannot retain the possession of the disputed premises and he has to vacate the same. #. In the result, this civil revision application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted stands vacated. The petitioner is directed to pay the costs of this civil revision application to the respondent. ******** (pathan)