IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
D.K. Deshmukh, J.
Pravinchandra Hemchand ..... Petitioner.
Versus
Choksey Ambalal Amichand and another ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 5026 of 1986, decided on 10-2-1998.
Advocates appeared :
A. K. Abhyankar, for Petitioner.
BOMBAY RENT ACT - SECTION 13(1)(E) - LICENCE - CREATION OF LICENCE AFTER 1ST FEBRUARY 1973 - ENTITLES LANDLORD TO EVICTION DECREE - LICENCE FEE OR CHARGE NECESSARY - ARRANGEMENT WITHOUT FEE NOT A LICENCE - NO EVICTION DECREE.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed a suit for eviction of tenant on the ground of sub-letting. Trial court found unlawful subletting and passed a decree of eviction. Appellate court reversed the finding, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
Appellate Court found that the tenant temporarily accommodated the defendant No. 3 in a portion of the premises without any consideration or charge. This does not amount to creation of a licence within the meaning of Bombay Rent Act, as charging of licence fee or charge is necessary for a licence.
Issues: Whether the arrangement between the tenant and the defendant No. 3 as found by the Appellate Court would amount to a licence within the meaning of the Bombay Rent Act.
Ratio Decidendi: For constituting a licence within the meaning of Bombay Rent Act, charging of licence fee or charge is necessary. In the present case, as the Appellate Court has found that no licence fee or charge has been taken by the tenant from defendant No. 3, it appears that the arrangement between the tenant and the defendant No. 3 would not amount to a licence within the meaning of the Act.
Final Decision: Petition failed and the rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
2.In the appeal filed by the defendants, however, the Appellate Court, reversed that finding, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. In this petition therefore, filed by the landlord, it is the order of the Appellate Court which is under challenge. Shri Abhyankar learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Appellate Court has found as a fact that the tenant defendant No. 1 temporarily accommodated the defendant No. 3 in a portion of the premises in appeal without any consideration or charge. In the submission of Shri Abhyankar therefore, this amounts to creation of a licence by the tenant in favour of the defendant No. 3 after 1st February 1973 and therefore in the submission of Shri Abhyankar, the Appellate Court was not right in holding that no licence within the meaning of Bombay Rent Act, was created in favour of the defendant No. 3 by the tenant and therefore, the landlord is not entitled to a decree of eviction under section 13(1)(e) of the Act.
3.Now, for appreciating this submission made by Shri Abhyankar, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of section 13(1)(e) of the Act. It lays down that the landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant has, after 1st February 1973, unlawfully given on licence the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any manner his interest therein. It is thus clear that creation of a licence in the suit premises or a part of it after 1st February 1973, entitles the landlord to a decree of eviction against the tenant. The term used in section 13(1) (e) is "licence". Though the term 'licence' is not defined by the Act, the term 'licensee' is defined and it is further laid down that the term "licence" is to be construed accordingly. Perusal of the definition of the term "licensee" appearing in section 5(4-A) of the Act is that the term "license" means a person who is in occupation of the premises under a subsisting licence given for a licence fee or charge. It is thus clear that for constituting a licence within the meaning of Bombay Rent Act, charging of licence fee or charge is necessary. In the present case, as the Appellate Court has found that no licence fee or charge has been taken by the tenant from defendant No. 3, it appears that the arrangement between the tenant and the defendant No. 3 would not amount to a licence within the meaning of the Act. Shri Abhyankar referred to provisions of section 15-A of the Act and submitted that a licensee who is in possession of the premises pursuant to a licence created before 1st February 1973, is deemed to become a tenant. In the submission of Shri Abhyankar therefore, there i
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.