JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:-This is a reference by the learned Single Judge (Srikrishna, J.) to resolve the conflict of opinion as to interpretation of section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Act).

2. In (Gajanand v. Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh)1, Bom. C.R. 259 (R.A. Jahagirdar, J.) and in (Dattatraya Pandi Kharote v. Pandurang Maruti Jadhav)2, 1991 Bom. R.C. 60 (Ashok Agarwal, J.) have held that the provision applies only to the premises taken on lease for residental use. In (Madhukar Vishnu Sathe v. Vithoba Ramji Thorat)3, A.I.R. 1992 Bombay 272 (V.V. Kamt, J.) has taken a view that the provision would apply also to premises taken for commercial use.

3. Factual matrix lies in a narrow compass and it is this : Lakshminarayan Deo Public Trust, Swaminaryan Mandir, Dhule (the landlord) had let out for commercial use the shop premises to deceased Bhavarlal Sukhlal Soni (tenant). The tenant secured another commercial premises in the town and on that basis a suit for recovery of possession of the premises under Clause 13(1)(1) was filed by the landlord. The trial Court dismissed the suit taking a view that section 13(1)(1) is not attrac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document