( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the respondents' suit for eviction should be decreed. The courts below have decreed the suit of the respondent-landlord on the ground that the respondent No. 2 Jayaben sub-let the premises to the petitioner in contravention of section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the "bombay Rent Act". At the outset, it may be noted that the tenant Jayaben through whom the petitioner claims interest had also challenged the decree by filing Writ Petition No. 3099 of 2001 which has been withdrawn on 13. 4. 2007. It may also be noted that earlier the petitioner and Jayaben had filed common Written statement before the trial Court. Thereafter, both the parties withdrew the common written Statement and filed separate Written statement in which Jayaben stated that the petitioner had been inducted by her by giving a table space on a gratuitous basis.

( 2 ) BOTH the courts below have, on the basis of evidence on record, come to the conclusion that Jayaben had unlawfully let out the suit premises to the petitioner. The petitioner's main defence was that he is a protected licensee under section 15-A of the bombay Rent Act having been inducted in the premises by Jayaben as a licensee sometime in the year 1971. Therefore, since he was in possession on 1. 2. 1973, he claimed protection under the amendment by which section 15-A was introduced in the Bombay Rent Act.

( 3 ) THE short point that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the courts below have rightly decreed the suit filed by the predecessor of the respondent nos. 1 (a) to 1 (c) on the ground of unlawful sub-letting. The petitioner's main defence was that he was inducted sometime in the year 1971 under an agreement dated 1. 9. 1971 and August 1992 at Exhibits 10 and 11. The appellate Court has observed that the agreements do not create any licence. In fact, there is no date in one of the agreements. The second agreement does not mention any licence fee, exclusive possession, etc. , and therefore, the said documents which are xerox copies were not relied upon at all. More over, the appellate Court has observed that there is no other evidence on record to support the petitioner's case that he was inducted in the suit premises as per the said agreement in the year 1971. The Appellate Court further found that the tenant Jayaben has in the subsequent Written Statement stated that the petitioner was inducted sometime in the year 1984 without any consideration and, therefore, he is not entitled to protection under section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act. There is no reason whatsoever to disturb the findings of fact arrived at by the lower Appellate court in this regard. The said findings are based on cogent and reliable evidence and are not liable to be interfered with.

( 4 ) MR. Thorat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the decree passed by the lower Appellate Court on the ground of sub-letting is not a valid decree since there is no finding that the petitioner had been inducted under a licence for any consideration, consideration being necessary for sub-letting, and, therefore, he cannot be treated as a sub-tenant within the meaning of section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay rent Act which reads as follows:-

"13. When landlord may recover possession (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of sections 15 and 15-A, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied - (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of this Act, unlawfully