JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.

2. Appellant is the landlord while res-pondent is the tenant. The appellant filed two eviction suits in respect of premises let out to the respondent in the building known as Popatlal New Chawl. The ground on which eviction was sought was that the tenant had by using passages and spaces not let out to it, committed breach of the terms of the tenancy and in particular of Clause 11 and was therefore, not entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Both the suits were heard by the trial Court together. The trial Court. on facts, found that the passages and spaces had not been let out to the respondent and that by using the passages and spaces in the manner in which the respondent was using, there had been a clear breach of the terms of the tenancy. The suits were however, dismissed on the ground that there was no proper service of the notice of forfeiture of the tenancy of the tenant.

3. While the appellant filed appeals before the appellate Court of the Small Causes, the respondent filed cross-objections. The appellate Court, on facts, found that the trial Court was right in concluding that the passages and spaces had not been let out to the