The burden of proof in establishing illegal subletting and the interpretation of legal provisions related to withdrawal of earlier proceedings were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The applicants who were the original defendants had preferred this revision against the judgments and decrees of the eviction of the suit shop, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Aurangabad, in Rent Suit No.13 of 2005 dated 16.09.2011 and the judgment confirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad in Rent Appeal No.17 of 2011, dated 08.10.2013.

2. Applicants nos. 1 and 2 will be referred to as 'tenants', applicants nos.3 and 4 will be referred to as "sub-tenants", and the respondent will be referred to as 'landlord'.

3. A few material facts to adjudicate the dispute were that the landlord had filed a suit for eviction against the tenants and sub-tenants. The tenants and the sub-tenants are the real brothers. The suit shop was situated at Manzoorpura, Aurangabad, bearing Municipal House No. 1-27-34 (New) and 3-81-42. Syed Ehtesham Ahmed Razzaqui was the original landlord. He rented the suit shop to the tenants to run a business. They were running the workshop in the suit shop. The present respondent/landlord was one of the legal heirs of the original landlord. After the demise of the original landlord, the present landlord claimed that the tenants were paying him rent. Hence, he is the landlord as defined under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“M.R.C. Act” for short). Therefore, the other legal heirs of Ehtesham were not necessary parties to the suit. Initially, it was projected that sub-tenants were the tenants' employees. However, on making detailed enquiries, the landlord learnt that the tenants had sublet the suit shop. Both tenants had separated their business at another place for the last 20-25 years. They do not have control over the business run in the suit shop. Hence, he claimed the eviction under Section 16 (1) (e) Clause (ii) of the M.R.C. Act.

4. Before filing the suit under the M.R.C. Act, the eviction proceeding was also filed before the Rent Controller in the year 1999 under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. While the suit under M.R.C. Act was pending, he withdrew the said proceeding.

5. The tenants and sub-tenants resisted the suit by a joint written statement. They came with a case that the original landlord had rented out the suit shop to their father. He was running the workshop under the name and style of 'Pune Engineering Works'. The tenants, as alleged by the landlord, were never his tenants. They did not have any lease agreement with the original landlord. They have inherited the tenancy from their father. Hence, they are protected under sub-clause (ii) of Section 7(15) Clause (c) of the M.R.C. Act. They did not illegally induct their brothers as sub-tenants. All of them were running the business jointly. The shop establishment registration stands in the name of tenant no.1. He is paying the electricity charges regularly. They have opposed the eviction on the ground that the legal heirs of the original landlord – Ehtesham have not been arraigned as parties to the suit. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There was no subletting. The landlord has no right to claim the eviction. He is not entitled to seek eviction.

6. Heard the respective counsels at length.

7. The following points fall for consideration :

(i) Is the plaintiff a landlord?

(ii) Were all the legal heirs of the deceased landlord – Ehtesham, the necessary parties to the suit?

(iii) Does Rule 4 of Order XXIII of the Civil Procedure Code bars the subsequent suit before the Civil Court under the M.R.C. Act?

(iv) Did the defendants inherit the tenancy after the death of their father?

(vi) Should the sub-tenant enter the witness box?

8. Both Courts held that the plaintiff was the landlord and the applicants nos.1 and 2 tenants in the suit shop, and they had illegally sub-let suit shop to applicants nos. 3 and 4. It was also held that the earlier proceeding before the Rent Controller under the Rent Control Act, 1954 does not bar the subsequent suit u