JUDGMENT

M. K. MUKHERJEE, J.:- The only question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent is a deemed tenant of the landlord under S. 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act for short) which confers such status upon a person, who was on February 1, 1973 in occupation of any premises or any part thereof, which is not less than a room, as a licensee. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court answered the question in the negative recording con current findings that there was an unauthorised sub-letting in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit filed by the appellant-landlord for his eviction, whereas the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction reversed those findings and dismissed the suit.

2. The appellant filed the suit in 1966 for eviction of M/s. H. D. Commercial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), who was its monthly tenant in respect of one room in its building in Bombay on the grounds of default in payment of rent and unlawful sub-letting of a partitioned portion of the room, (marked as BCDE in the plan which was exhibited during trial as Ext. B and hereinafter referred to as the premises) to the respondent. Besides the Corporation and the respondent, the appellant im-pleaded some others as defendants as according to it they were also in occupation by the premises under them.

3. Except the respondent no other defendants contested the suit, though the Corporation filed a written statement. In the first written statement filed on March 30,1967 the respondent contended that he was a lawful sub-tenant of the Corporation in respect of the premises since before May 21,1959, the day when the Bombay Act 49 of 1959 came into force giving protection to the existing sub-tenants and that, therefore, he was not liable to be evicted. 4. Subsequently in 1975 the respondent filed an additional written statement reiterating his earlier stand as lawful sub-tenant and pleading an alternative case as a protected licensee under S. 15A of the Act brought in the Statute Book in 1973.

5. During trial the respondent, while examining himself, asserted his claim as a lawful sub-tenant since before May 21, 1959 and, alternatively, as a protected licensee since before February 1, 1973 on the basis of a lease and licence agreement (hereinafter referred to as the agreement) which he entered into with the Corporation on March 12, 1964.

6. On consideration of the evidence adduced before it the trial Court first held that the claim of the respondent that he had come to occupy the premises before May 21, 1959 was baseless and on examination of the terms of the agreement in the light of the surrounding circumstances the Court held that the respondent was a lessee and not a licensee entitled to protection of S. 15A of the Act. Accordingly, it decreed the suit for unlawful sub-letting. In the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the trial Court the respondent however rested its case as a licensee under the agreement and not as a lawful sub-tenant since before 1959. The appellate Court concurring with all the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the respondent moved the High Court by filing a writ petition which was allowed with a finding that he was protected licensee (deemed tenant) of the premises.

7. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court was not at all justified in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court, in its writ jurisdiction. It was further submitted that, in any event, if the agreement was read in the context of the surrounding circumstances, there was no escape from the conclusion that it was one of lease, though instituted as one of licence.

8. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the High Court correctly interpreted the law and held that what was material was the intention of the parties in executing the agreement. To ascert