JUDGMENT- V.C. DAGA, J.:---This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1983 passed by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 291 of 1981, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and thereunder the decree of eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("Bombay Rent Act" for short) passed against the petitioner, by second Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune dated 20th December 1980 in Civil Suit No. 2150 of 1977 was confirmed.

THE FACTS

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nut shell, are as under:

The petitioner herein is a tenant. He was defendant; whereas the respondents were plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs are landlords of the suit premises located on the first floor of the suit building. The parties herein are referred to in their original capacity for the sake of clarity.

3. The suit premises were let out to defendant No. 1 for running typewriting institute and shorthand classes. The defendant No. 1 carried on these activities for sometime. In order to supplement his income, he entered into partnership with defendant No. 2 and started running Photo Studio in the part of the said suit premises under the name and style "Raghuvir Art Studio, Pune".

4. The plaintiffs, based on the above pleadings had claimed eviction of the tenant-defendant No. 1 on two grounds, namely, (i) that the tenant defendant No. 1 had changed the purpose of the user and (ii) parted with possession of the part of the suit premises and thereby sublet the suit premises to defendant No. 2, making himself liable for eviction under section 13(1)(a) and (e) of the Bombay Rent Act. Both the courts below concurrently held that the tenant had committed breach of section 13(1)(a) and (e) of the said Act and, as such, was liable for eviction. This judgment and decree is a subject matter of challenge in this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The eviction suit was resisted by defendant No. 1, who filed his written statement (Exhibit 30); wherein he had denied the allegations with regard to the change of user. Similarly, he had also denied the allegations in respect of creation of sub-tenancy in favour of defendant No. 2. In order to justify the entry of defendant No. 2 in the suit premises, it was pleaded that defendant No. 2 was admitted as a partner in new business venture run under the name and style "Raghuvir Art Studio, Pune". The said business arrangement by no stretch of imagination could be said to be an act of creation of sub-tenancy or for that purpose an act of parting with possession of the suit premises in favour of some other person.

6. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by their written statement (Exh. 24) had also denied that they were occupying the suit premise as sub-tenants. The defendant No. 2 claimed to be a partner in the business of photography run under the name and style of defendant No. 3. All the defendants had pleaded that the suit premises were being used for the purposes of running business for which it was let out and, as such, it was contended that none of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were breached.

7. The trial Court framed issues relevant to the pleadings with regard to creation of sub-tenancy and change of user of the premises for the purpose other than the for which it was let out. The issues were put to trial. The parties were permitted to lead oral as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff No. 2 one Mr. Dattatraya Gokhale entered into the witness box on behalf, of the plaintiffs. In his evidence, he deposed that defendant No. 2, at the relevant time was carrying on business of photography in the suit premises under the name and style “Raghuvir Art Studio, Pune”. He further deposed that the premises were not being used for the purpose for which it was let out. He further deposed record that bathroom in the building was meant for all the tenants of the build

Click Here to Read the rest of this document