The Defendant was not a protected licensee under the Bombay Rent Act, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the recovery of business and machinery, necessitating remand for subsequent events.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. This Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 7 March 1986 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay in S.C. Suit No. 6153 of 1980. The Appeal is filed by the Plaintiff. By the said Judgment and Decree, the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff is dismissed. For the sake of convenience the Appellant is hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff and the Respondent is hereinafter referred to as the Defendant in their original capacity in the suit.

2. The Plaintiff filed the said suit claiming to be the owner of the business of a printing press, which he has been carrying in the name and style of “Yeshwant Printing Press” in the suit premises (“the suit business” for short). The description of the suit premises given in the Plaint is only the description of the plot on which the suit building is standing. It is stated to be plot No. 8, Sai Niwas Plot, Netaji Baug, Agra Road, Opposite A.P.I. Company, Bhandup, Bombay-400078. The Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the machinery, furniture, fixtures and other connected things with the said printing press. He claims to have all relevant licenses required for carrying on the suit business. He claims that due to his ill health, he was medically advised to take rest and the Defendant was known to him as he had earlier conducted and managed the Plaintiff’s printing press business. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to allow him to conduct and manage the suit business for a certain period. It is claimed that after due negotiations, the Plaintiff gave the suit business to the Defendant for conducting under the Conducting Agreement dated 1 October 1977. It is worth mentioning at this stage that the suit premises involved are in fact described in this Conducting Agreement, being premises admeasuring about 20 feet by 10 feet construction on the suit plot as mentioned in the plaint. It is further contended that the term of the said Conducting Agreement was of 3 years, which expired on 30 September 1980. It is contended that by efflux of time the said Conducting Agreement came to an end and therefore, 10 days prior to the term-end, the Plaintiff sent a letter- cum-notice dated 20 September 1980 to the Defendant requesting to hand over the suit business back to the Plaintiff. It is contended that the said letter-cum-notice was not complied with and hostile stand was taken. Thereafter despite repeated requests and personally meeting with Defendant, he acted rudely and refused to hand over the suit business and possession of the suit premises. It is contended that on 24 October 1980, Plaintiff found that many of the articles and parts of machinery of the suit business were not in the suit premises and when the Plaintiff confronted the Defendant, the Plaintiff was driven out by the Defendant.

3. It is contended that the Defendant damaged the articles and paraphernalia of the business badly and the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant was actually doing business under the name and style of “Kumud Printers” in the suit premises and had spread rumors in the market that the Defendant has purchased the suit business from the Plaintiff. It is contended that on 25 October 1980, when the Plaintiff tried to meet the Defendant in the suit premises, the Defendant threatened him with conversion of suit premises into restaurant and hotel or passing it to some 3rd party. It is contended that therefore, the suit is filed, since the Defendant’s occupation is merely of trespasser after efflux of time provided in the Conducting Agreement.

4. The Plaintiff prayed for recovery of charge and management of the suit business and delivery of the possession of the suit premises along with all the machinery, articles fixtures etc. The Plaintiff further prayed for payment of royalty and mesne profit. The Plaintiff further prayed for appointment of the Court Receiver and for injunction, restraining the Respondent from conducting the suit bu