The defined 'premises' under the Bombay Rent Act excludes areas lacking independent accommodations, impacting claims for tenant protections.

JUDGMENT :

M. M. Sathaye, J.

1. The Petitioner Dharamgiri is a legal representative of original Defendant - Baba Bramhanandji in L.E. Suit No. 256 of 1977 filed by the then trustees of Respondent- Trust Babulnath Temple Trust, Babulnath Road, Mumbai-400007, which is a famous Shiva temple in Mumbai. The parties are referred to in their original capacity for better understanding. Respondents are Plaintiffs.

2. The case of the Plaintiff-Trust in short is that the Defendant is an ascetic and follower of one Baba Ramgiriji. The Plaintiff-Trust had permitted late Baba Ramgiriji to use un-demarcated portion on landing of the main staircase of the Babulnath Temple. Upon death of said Baba Ramgiriji in or about 1968, the Trust had permitted the Defendant to use the said portion of the landing. That by Advocate’s letter dated 06/02/1976, the Plaintiff-Trust has withdrawn and revoked the permission granted to the Defendant to use the portion of the landing. The Defendant by Advocate’s letter dated 15/03/1976 took a stand that he was a tenant. The Plaintiff-Trust thereafter, by way of precaution issued second Advocate’s letter dated 08/02/1977 and again withdrew the permission granted to the Defendant to use the said portion of the staircase-landing, which was again replied by the Defendant through his Advocate’s letter dated 16/02/1977 wherein similar stand was adopted. That the portion of the landing of the main staircase, which was permitted to be used, is not a premises or room which is capable of being let under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘Bombay Rent Act’ for short). That the Defendant failed to vacate the said portion of the landing and therefore the suit was filed under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1888 seeking direction to the Defendant to vacate and remove himself from the occupation of the said portion of landing on the main staircase of the temple.

3. The original Defendant-Baba Brahmanandji filed written statement in December 1977 contending interalia that deceased-Baba Ramgiriji was tenant of the Plaintiff-Trust in respect of demarcated portion at the main gate and in the rent bills issued from time to time, the said premises have been described as ‘Darwajawali room’ for which rent of Rs.2/- was being charged. That after the death of Baba Ramgiriji, the Plaintiff-Trust has been receiving rent from the defendant. However, the Plaintiff-Trust continued to issue rent receipt in the name of Baba Ramgiriji. That deceased Baba Ramgiriji expired in the suit premises and the Defendant being his disciple (Chela), performed all the rituals. That there is electric sub-meter in the suit premises for which the Plaintiff-Trust has been charging deceased-Baba Ramgiriji and thereafter the Defendant for electricity charges. He denied that un-demarcated portion on the landing of main staircase was permitted to be used. That deceased-Baba Ramgiriji has been tenant since prior to 1930 and the suit premises has remained in exclusive possession, use and occupation of the said deceased-Baba Ramgiriji during his lifetime and thereafter in exclusive use and possession of the Defendant. Exchange of notices are admitted. Defendant denied that the suit premises are not capable of being let under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act or Transfer of Properties Act. He claimed protection under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act and contended that he is ready and willing to observe terms of tenancy.

4. The present Petitioner-Dharamgiri Maharaj filed a written statement in April 1983, contending that he is lawful tenant of the suit premi