An occupant can attain deemed tenant status under Section 15A of the Bombay Rents Act if they were in possession with the landlord's consent, despite the expiration of a license.

J U D G M E N T

1 These two Civil Revision Applications are filed by the heirs of Mr. N.N. Dogra-the original occupant of suit premises, challenging the decrees passed by Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 6 October 2018, by which their claim of tenancy in respect of the suit premises is rejected and they have been directed to handover possession of the suit premises to the owners (Respondents). The Appellate Bench has reversed the decree passed in favour of Mr. N.N. Dogra in RAD Suit No. 90 of 1992 which had declared him to be a tenant in respect of the suit premises. The Appellate Bench has also decreed LE & C No.136/161 of 1992 filed by landlords by ordering eviction of the heirs of Mr. N.N. Dogra from the suit premises.

2 Flat No.23, in Building named ‘Prem Court’ situated at 5, Peddar Road, Mumbai, are the ‘Suit Premises’. Defendants claim to be the owners in respect of the suit premises. Occupant of suit premises, Mr. Narindar Nath Dogra filed RAD Suit No.90 of 1992 before Court of Small Causes at Bombay seeking a declaration that he is a tenant in respect of the suit premises. On the other hand, landlords filed LE & C Suit No.136/161 of 1992 treating Mr. Dogra as a trespasser and seeking his eviction from suit premises. By judgment and decree dated 17 February 2006, Small Causes Court decreed RAD Suit No.90 of 1992 and declared Mr. Dogra to be deemed tenant in respect of the suit premises and restrained the landlords from dispossessing him from the suit premises without following the due process of law. On the same day i.e. on 17 February 2006, LE & C Suit No.136/161 of 1992 filed by landlords came to be dismissed.

3 The landlords filed Appeal No.392 of 2006 challenging the decree in RAD Suit No.90 of 1992. They also filed Appeal No.253 of 2007 challenging the decree LE & C Suit No.136/161 of 1992. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has delivered two separate judgments on 6 October 2018 allowing both the Appeals. Accordingly, the decree passed in RAD Suit No.90 of 1992 is set aside and the said Suit is dismissed. LE & C Suit No.136/161 of 1992 is decreed directing the heirs of Mr. Dogra to vacate the suit premises with further direction for conduct of enquiry into mesne profits from the date of notice of termination of license till date of possession.

4 Mr. Noronha, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants in both the Civil Revision Applications would submit that Mr. Dogra has become a deemed tenant/protected tenant under provisions of section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rents Act) since he was a licensee in respect thereof as on 1 February 1973. He would submit that though the tenure of the last License Agreement expired on 23 March 1968, the license arrangement was continued by virtue of various correspondence between the parties. That the landlords kept on accepting the amount of compensation in respect of license initially directly from Mr. Dogra and later by through the society. That the license came to be revoked for the first time on 29 November 1991 and that no demand was made for possession of the suit premises before 29 November 1991. That there is sufficient evidence on record to indicate payment of rent/license fees till the year 1985. Mr. Noronha would submit that Mr. Dogra has been held to be a licensee while answering point No.1 by the Appellate Bench. That therefore he would became a deemed tenant under provisions of section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act.

5 Mr. Noronha would further submit that the Appellate Bench has erred in holding that Mr. Dogra was not occupying the suit premises under a subsisting license as on 1 February 1973. Relying on judgment of this Court in Kiritkumar Vallabhdas Gajaria and another vs. Champaben Narottam Kapadia and others, AIR 1998 Bom. 337, he would submit that even a gratuitous licensee becomes a licensee and that therefore such licensee, as on 1 February 1973, automatically becomes deemed tenant. I