1. This is a classic case where the petitioner, who is not an ordinary but an affluent tenant engaged in several businesses, has kept away the respondent now 87 years of age, from his only residential premises situated at Mumbai since last more than 40 years. The eviction suit of the respondent/landlord against the petitioner/tenant is of the year 1978, instituted on the ground of bonafide requirement of the respondent. The respondent succeeded before the trial Court as also the appellate Court in proving his bonafide requirement of the suit premises, however, is unfortunately required to wait for all these years to receive the fruits of the decree.

2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm occupying residential premises at Malbar Hill, Mumbai as a tenant of the respondent-landlord. The respondent had instituted an eviction Suit No.962/3355 of 1978 before the Small Causes Court at Bombay against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement. The suit was partly decreed by the learned trial Judge thereby dividing the suit premises between the respondent-landlord and the petitioner tenant. Both the parties had assailed the judgment of the trial Judge by approaching the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court. The appellate bench by its judgment and order dated 7 August 1998 confirmed the findings of the learned trial Judge on bonafide requirement and has fully decreed the respondent's eviction suit and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner/tenant being aggrieved by the eviction decree and the concurrent findings of both the Courts below has preferred this petition.

3. In brief the facts are: The respondent/landlord is the owner of Flat No.12 on the 3rd floor of the building named 'Park View' situated at Little Gibbs Road, Malbar Hill, Mumbai (for short 'suit premises) and a garage on the ground floor. The case of the respondent as set out in the plaint is that the respondent had agreed to grant to the petitioner/tenant, which is a partnership firm carrying on its business/office at 32, Apollo Street, Mumbai – 400 001, the suit premises on leave and licence from 1st December 1970, for which the petitioner had agreed to pay to the respondent, compensation at the rate of Rs.1950/per month. The suit premises were fully furnished with costly furniture, fixtures, air conditioners and other articles. The terms and conditions of licence were reduced in writing and signed by the parties on 1st December 1970 on which date the petitioner was put in possession. The period of licence under the leave and licence agreement expired by efflux of time on 1st August 1974. There was a renewal option, however, there was no renewal of the licence. The Petitioner asserted to be a tenant of the respondent and not a licensee. Although the respondent in paragraph 4 of the plaint disputed the tenancy, however subsequently accepted that the petitioner was in occupation of the suit premises as on 1st February 1973 and by virtue of the incorporation of section 15A by an amendment to the Bombay Rents Hotel And Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, “the Bombay Rent Act”), the petitioner was at the most a statutory tenant. Apart from the leave and licence agreement, there was no other tenancy agreement between the respondent/landlord and the petitioner.

4. The respondent by his Advocate's notice dated 29 January 1974 terminated the tenancy of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to vacate the suit premises, as also to pay arrears of compensation from 1st June 1973 at the rate of Rs.1950/- per month. This notice though was duly served on the petitioner, was not replied. The respondent therefore instituted the suit in question (RAE Suit No.962/3355 of 1978) seeking a decree of eviction and possession against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement as section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control, Act 1947 (for short the Rent Act) would provide. Section 13 (1)(g)