The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair compensation and the need to consider individual facts and circumstances in determining the valuation of the land and building.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Gupte, J.

1. This civil revision application challenges a judgment and decree passed by the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai reversing a decree of dismissal passed by the trial court in an eviction suit and decreeing the suit by ordering eviction of the Applicant herein.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly set out as follows:

2.1 By a lease deed dated 16 August 1949, one Abubaker Gulam Rasool Jerullah ("original lessor") demised a piece or parcel of land known as "Dorachi khar" together with structures standing thereon in favour of one Chunilal Ukabhai Padia ("original lessee") for a period of 30 years. The lease deed inter alia permitted the lessee to construct on the land and own such construction.

2.2 The original lessee erected a building comprising of ground and four upper storeys, which came to be known as "Garment House", and carried on business of power laundry there under the name and style as "The Garment Cleaning Works". In front of Garment House there were two chawl-like structures having about 20 tenements.

2.3 It was the case of the original plaintiffs (i.e. predecessors of the Respondents) that on or about 22 January 1968, after the death of the original lessor, his legal heirs entered into a supplementary indenture of lease permitting the original lessee to demolish the old structures standing on the property and erect new structures. The duration of the supplementary lease was for a period of 98 years commencing from 1 February 1968, with an option of renewal for a further period of 10 years.

2.4 On or about 1 April 1987, the original lessee died. Prior to his death, on or about 1 July 1985, he had executed a last will and testament creating inter alia a charitable trust and appointing the Applicant herein and one Amritlal Gordhandas Jajal ("Amritlal") as executors and trustees.

2.5 In or about 1988, one Zenabibi Gulam Rasool Jarullah and others, claiming to be legal heirs of the original lessor, filed the present ejection suit against three defendants, namely, the Applicant therein, Amritlal and 'unnamed heirs and legal representatives of the original lessee'. During the pendency of the suit, Amritlal expired and his name was deleted from the cause title. Also, during the pendency of the suit, purportedly after learning about the identities of heirs and legal representatives of the original lessee, original defendant Nos. 3A to 3K were brought on record in place and stead of defendant No. 3 (i.e. unknown heirs and legal representatives of the lessee). According to the original plaintiffs, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e. the Applicant herein and Amritlal) had no right to the tenancy of the suit property and were in wrongful use, occupation and possession of the same. The basis of the eviction suit was-

(a) wrongful transfer of tenancy of the suit property in breach of Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("Rent Act");

(b) arrears of rent; and

(c) non-user of the suit property for a continuous period of more than six months preceding the suit without sufficient cause (this ground having been introduced later by way of an amendment).

In addition to eviction, the suit sought a money decree towards statutory rent/compensation.

2.6 By a judgment and decree dated 25 June 2004, the trial court dismissed the suit. The trial court inter alia found against the plaintiffs on all counts, i.e. unlawful subletting, arrears of rent and continuous non-user of the suit property for preceding six months.

2.7 The decree was challenged by the original plaintiffs before an appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes. During the pendency of the appeal, one Sumer Corporation, claiming to be a transferee of the suit property from the legal heirs of the original lessors by a registered deed of conveyance, applied for joinder to the appeal.

2.8 By its order and judgment dated 4 May 2017, the appellate bench of the court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of d