The petitioner is the owner/landlord of the suit property admeasuring 20 ft. x 10 ft. at the basement on the back side of CTS No.740, Budhwar Peth, Ganesh Road, Pune.

.2. The trial Court granted decree of possession against respondents 1 and 2 (defendants 1 and 2)

.by holding that the petitioner/plaintiff proved that suit premises were let out for residence; he is a defaulter; not ready and willing to pay the rent inspite of legal notice; changed the use of premises from residence to non-residence; respondent No.1 sub-letted the premises to defendant no.2; needed for own use and occupation and thereby ordered possession.

3. By the impugned order, however, the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal filed by respondent no.2 and original defendant no.1/tenant not entered into the witness box and not challenged the impugned order of trial court. The Appellate Court while reversing the decree of possession has granted protection under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, "The Bombay Rent Act") to defendant no.2.

4. Admittedly, defendant no.1 did not lead any evidence. The petitioner/plaintiff led evidence through his Power of Attorney. Defendant no.2 led his evidence. The plaintiff became owner on 6.1.1973. There is nothing on record to show that defendant no.2 was in possession of the premises with the consent and/or permission from the original landlord at any point of time and the same was let out or permitted for non-residential purpose by the landlord. In the absence of evidence and/or rebuttal by original defendant no.1, I see there is no reason not to consider the case of the plaintiff that it was let out for residence, but defendant no.2 who entered into the premises unauthorisedly, converted and started to use the premises for business of storage. The plaintiff’s averments and evidence on record and as appreciated by the trial court, in my view, is correct that the residential premises were changed into non-residential by the defendants.

5. Admittedly, there is no material to show that the plaintiff/landlord has given consent or permission to defendant no.1 to sub-let the premises at any point of time. Defendant no.2 unable to place on record any original document of the year 1967. Carbon copy of the agreements just cannot be relied specially in the absence of supporting evidence of original tenant/defendant no.1 with whom defendant no.2 claiming valid sub-tenancy. Therefore, the trial Court is right in rejecting the carbon copies of agreements. There is nothing to prove even the signature of defendant no.1 on these agreements. Defendant no.2 should have examined defendant no.1 to prove his case. This itself shows and proves the case of plaintiff that defendant no.2 was inducted unauthorisedly by defendant no.1. The licence fee receipt or the accounts as placed by defendant no.2 in this background also unreliable. There is not a single receipt placed on record of such nature signed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2. The trial Court has raised various doubts about the account books placed on record by defendant no.2 as there were many blank pages found in the same. He did not produce any assessment order prior to 1973 of his business. The account books have not been regularly maintained and in the present facts and circumstances are rightly rejected by the trial Court.

.6. Defendant no.2 in the absence of defendant no.1 failed to prove that he was in occupation of the premises authorisedly prior to 1973. The Appellate Court, in my view, is wrong in reversing the

.findings given by the trial court that defendant no.2 failed to prove his case of occupation prior to 1973. Defendant no.2 admitted that the electricity meter was started on 26.09.1974. Admittedly, defendant no.1 has left the premises and defendant no.2 is in possession of the same unauthorisedly. Even assuming for a moment that the landlord mentioned in the termination notice that defendant no.1 let out