JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---This is defendant's appeal against whom decree for possession has been passed by the City Civil Court. The plaintiffs, who are the respondents before me, had filed the suit against the defendant contending, inter alia, that the defendant was the tenant of plaintiff No. 2 on the date of the suit, that the Bombay Rent Act did not apply to the premises in question and that the defendant's tenancy had been duly terminated by the plaintiff and that, hence, the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit premises from the defendant.

The defendant, inter alia, contended that he was protected by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and hence---

(a) that no decree for eviction against him could be passed by the City Civil Court; and

(b) that he was entitled to the protection under the Rent Act even, otherwise.

This defendant's contention was negatived by the trial Court and a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff. When this Appeal, initially came before a learned Single Judge of this Court (Tulpule, J.) various pleas were raised before him. The main plea regarding the applicability of the Rent Act to the suit premises was decide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document