The judgment emphasizes the principles of granting decrees based on written statements, passing eviction decrees against persons in possession, and the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.

ORDER :

S.N. Variava, J.

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Both the appeals are against the judgment dated 10.3.1999. In this judgment parties will be referred to in their capacity in Civil Appeal 594/2000. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-

2. The appellant is the landlord of a flat in "Oyster Apartments" Pilot Bunder Road, Coloba, Mumbai 400005. The appellant was a naval officer and as such was being posted to various places in India. Therefore, the appellant, by an agreement dated 21.2.1969 gave the said flat on leave and licence to the 1st respondent-Company. Clause 5(c) and (f) are relevant for our purpose. They read as follows:

"5(c) To use and occupy the said premises as residence only for their officers and employees and for no other purpose. The Licensees have however informed the Licensor that the said premises shall in the first instance be occupied by Dr. Surinder P.S. Pruthi one of the Licensees Officers.

(f) Not to allow any person other than their officers or employees to use and occupy the said premises or any part thereof."

3. The said Dr. Surinder PS Pruthi is the 2nd respondent in Civil Appeal No. 594/2000.

4. The appellant retired from naval services some time in 1970. Thereafter a fresh leave and licence agreement dated 3.1.1972 was entered into. The said agreement also contain similar clauses.

5. The Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was amended on 1.2.1973. Section 15A was inserted in the Act. By virture of Section 15A all persons in occupation as licensees on 1.2.1973 became deemed tenants. By virtue of this provision the 1st respondent-Company became a deemed tenant of the appellant. In December, 1974 the 2nd respondent retired. He, therefore seized to be in service of the 1st respondent-Company. 2nd respondent sought to tender rent to the appellant. Appellant refused to accept rent from the 2nd respondent.

6. On 11.4.1975 the 2nd respondent filed Suit No.214/75 seeking a declaration that he is a tenant of the appellant in the said flat. The appellant by a notice dated 19.11.1975, addressed to the 1st respondent-Company claimed arrears of rent as well as possession of the flat. The 1st respondent-Company, by its reply dated 24.12.1975 contended that they had already informed the appellant that 2nd respondent had ceased to be an employee of the Company by the end of 1974 and that thereafter they had no further interest in the said flat or in retaining possession of the said flat. The 1st respondent-Company claimed that they were not liable to pay any rent w.e.f. 1.1.1975.

7. The appellant, therefore, filed Suit No.134/76 for eviction. The said suit was under Section 12(2) of the Act, i.e. on the ground of non payment of the rent by the 1st respondent as well as under Section 13A1 of the Act, i.e. seeking recovery on the ground that the appellant was a member of the armed forces who had retired. The 1st respondent-Company filed written statements in both the suits. In the suit filed by the appellant the 1st respondent averred as follows:-

"...The defendant no.1 states that they had paid the rent in respect of the suit premises upto 31st December, 1974. The 1st defendant state that the 2nd defendant ceased to be in the employ of the 1st defendant from 1.1.1975. In or about July 1974, the 1st defendant had informed the plaintiff that the defendant no.2 would cease to be in their employ at the end of the year 1974 and requested the plaintiff to enter into a direct agreement with this defendant in respect of the suit premises and negotiations were going on between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 in respect of the said flat. The 1st defendant states that they had made clear to the plaintiff that they would not be liable for the rent of the suit flat from 1st January 1975 and requested the plaintiff to collect the same from the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant understand that the 2nd defendant had paid rent from 1st Janu