In eviction proceedings governed by rent control laws, a landlord need not prove absolute title, only the right to possession. A licensee is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from questioning the licensor's title after admitting to the induction into the premises.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. Sathaye, J.

1. The Petitioner is Original Plaintiff No.1/licensor and Respondents are legal heirs of original Defendant / licensee. The Petition is filed challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 08.04.2005 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, at Bandra in Appeal No. 166 of 2002. By this judgment and decree, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner is dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2002 passed by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in L.E. & C. Suit No. 247/338 of 1978. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit for eviction and compensation and the dismissal is confirmed in the Appeal.

2. The Petitioner and one of its partners Mr. T. M. Chandiramani filed the said suit under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, (‘PSCC Act’ for short). The suit is filed seeking vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises as well as for compensation from original Defendant-licensee.

3. The case of the Plaintiffs is as under. That, Plaintiffs are owners of suit flat bearing No. 14/C, on the First Floor, of Cozihom Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Pali Hill, Bandra Mumbai– 400 050. That Plaintiff No.1 is a registered partnership firm and Plaintiff No.2 was a partner at the relevant time. That Defendant approached one of the partners of Plaintiff No.1 (R. L. Ramchandani) to allow him to occupy the suit flat for short period because the Defendant’s flat - C/81 in the same building, was in occupation of tenant. Defendant informed Mr. Ramchandani that he was taking steps to get his flat - C/81 vacated and assured Mr. Ramchandani that Defendant wanted the suit flat only for temporary accommodation for a short period and he will vacate the same on a short notice. Relying on such assurances, the partnership firm -Plaintiff No.1 along with its partner Plaintiff No. 2 allowed the Defendant to occupy the suit flat as a licensee. Initially the said flat was given to one Mr. T. Kiyosi at the request of the Defendant on leave and licence for monthly licence fee of Rs. 950/- for a period of 11 months. The said Mr. T. Kiyosi handed over the possession of the flat before expiry of licence period and thereafter, at the request of the Defendant, the licence fee was reduced from Rs.950/- to Rs.600 /-per month and it was given on leave and licence basis to Defendant. An agreement dated 01.11.1975 was executed between Plaintiff No.2 (Mr. T. M. Chandiramani) and the Defendant and under the said agreement both the Plaintiffs i.e. the partnership firm and its partner Mr. T. M. Chandiramani permitted the Defendant to occupy the suit flat on leave and licence basis. That licence period expired on 01.10.1976 and the Plaintiffs by their Advocate’s letter/notice dated 12.01.1978 terminated the licence and called upon the Defendant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit flat and pay arrears of compensation. That the Defendant by its Advocate’s letter/reply dated 12.04.1978 raised false grounds contending that he and his wife are in possession of the suit flat as joint tenants since prior to 01.11.1975. By Advocate’s letter dated 24.04.1978, the Plaintiffs again call