JUDGMENT - M.L. DUDHAT, J.:---This writ petition is preferred against the judgment and order dated 21st of March, 1984, passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Bombay, in Appeal No. 644 of 1982 confirming the judgment and order dated 30th of September, 1982, passed by the learned Judge of the same Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff holding that he is a deemed tenant and/or protected licensee.

2. Few facts which gave rise to this litigation are that the present petitioner defendant was carrying on the business of pan beedi through her husband as her constituted attorney in the suit premises at Jacob Circle, Bombay. It is not disputed that by an assignment deed dated 16th September, 1964, the petitioner purchased the said business and it is also mentioned in the said assignment deed that the said business of pan beedi was being carried on by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner since the year 1954. On 1st of September, 1972, the present petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent plaintiff for conducting the said business for a period of 11 months. The grievance of the petitioner is that during that time he was sick suffering from tuberculosis and it was impossible for him to carry on the said business on account of his illness. It is further his case that during this period the present respondent approached him with a request that he may be allowed to conduct the said business. In the aforesaid circumstances, the said business was given to the respondent for conducting for a period of 11 months on 1st of September, 1972, and the said period expired on 31st July, 1973. After the expiry of this period of 11 months, the petitioner further entered into a second agreement for a further period of 11 months by a further agreement dated 27th August, 1973. However, the respondent even after the expiry of this period of 11 months continued to conduct the said business till January, 1977. On 6th January, 1977, petitioner gave a notice calling upon the present respondent to vacate the suit premises. After the receipt of the said notice, the respondent filed suit being R.A. Decl. Suit No. 523 of 1977 in the Court of Small Causes on 10th of March, 1977, stating that he was in exclusive possession of the suit premises as a protected licensee from the year 1970 and he may be declared as a protected licensee or deemed tenant under the amendment of the Bombay Rent Act which came into force in the year 1973. I may mention here that nowhere in the plaint the present respondent made a mention of any written agreement executed between him and the petitioner, but merely made averment that he is a protected licensee from the year 1970 and, therefore, on 1st of February, 1973, when the new Rent Act came into force his licence was in subsistence. The defendant filed his written statement in the said suit and denied the contentions of the plaintiff-respondent that he was a protected licensee. He submitted that the said premises was a business premises where he was conducting the Pan beedi business. He further submitted that the said business was purchased by him on 16th September, 1964, by the said deed of assignment and in the said deed of assignment it was clearly mentioned that in the suit premises his predecessor-in-title was conducting the said business from the year 1954. He also submitted that he was suffering from tuberculosis and was handicapped to do the said business for some time. During this period the present approached him and requested him the he may be allowed to conduct the said business. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner entered into the said agreement with the respondent plaintiff on 1st of September, 1972. According to him, the dominant intention of the said leave and licence agreement was to allow the respondent to conduct the business of the said pan beedi in the suit premises on payment of compensation of Rs. 200/- per month to the petitioner and in order to express this inten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document