LexLUDHICHEM AGENCIES ETC. versus AHMED R.V. PEER MOHAMED AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
112
LUDHICHEM AGENCIES ETC.
v.
AHMED R.V. PEER MOHAMED AND ANR.
Sfplember 15, 1981
(R. S. PATHAK AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.J
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947, Ss 14( 1)
C
(2) and 15A(l)-Landlord terminating tenancy and obtaining decree for ejectment
-Sub-tenant when entitled to statutory protection.
Respondent No. I who was the landJord and had let out the petition pre·
mises to respondent No. 2, served a notice (dated July 28, 1962) terminating her
tenancy and filed an ejectment suit. A decree for ejcctment was passed (in 1966)
D
and the appeal of respondent No. 2 was dismissed (in 1972). The landlord took
out execution of the decree. Obstructionist notice served on the petitioners
who were sub-tenants of respondent No. 2 was made absolute in favour of the
landlord. The p~titioners' .appeal wa11 dismissed.
Di'imissing the petitioners' suits against the landlord for a declaration that
they were lawful sub-ttnants/licensees entitled to the protection of the Bombay
E
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and for an injunction
restraining the landlord from executing the decree for ejectment the trial Court
held that they were not entitled to the benefit of the Act as lawful sub tenants
or as deemed tenants or as protected licensees. The petitioners· appeals were
dismissed on the ground that having been inducted into the premises after 1960
they were not entitled to be regarded as lawful sub-tenants.
F
In the Special Leave Petitions to this Court it was contended that the
G
H
petitioners: (1) must be regarded as licensees entitled to the benefit of section
14(2) read with section 15-A(J) of the Act: and (2) having been in occupation
since 1943 and having in 1960 merely restricted their occupation to the portions
occupied by them, they were lawful sub-tenants since 1943, and, therefore, by
virtue of section 14{1) they must be regarded as tenants on the determination of
respondent No. 2's tenancy.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions:
IfELD : 1.
An agreement for licence can subsist and continue only so long
as the licensor continues to enjoy a right, title or interest in the premises. On the
termination of his right, title or interest in the premises, the agreement for licence
comes to an end. If the licensor is a tenant, the agreement for licence termi-
nates with the tenancy. I\o tenant is
ordinarily competent
to grant a
licence beyond his tenancy.
On the termination of the licensor's tenancy
the licensee cases
to be a licensee. This
loss of status is the point
/• '
>
.,-----
LUDICHEM AGENCIES v. AHMED R.V. (Pathak, J.)
713
from which sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act begins to operate and in
consequence of its ooeration, the erstwhile licensee becomes a tenant of the
landlord on the terms and conditions of the agreement.
[715 F-H]
In the instant case respondent No. 2 ceased to be a tenant of any description
long before February I, 1973. The contractual tenancy came to an end when the
notice to quit took effect and the statutory tenancy terminated when the decree
for ejectment was passed thereafter. When she had ceased to be tenant, the
agreement for licence stood autom1tically terminated oy reason of which th.:
petitioners cannot claim to be licensees on Fcbruaiy I, 1973. [715 H-716 B]
2. The b:!nefit of section 14~ I) can be claimed by a sub tenant to whom
the premises had b.!!en lawfully sub-let before the con1m.:ncement of the Bombay
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959.
A
B
(716 E]
C
In the instant case the sub-tenancy has been found to commence from 1962
and not earlier. , The benefit of sub-section (1) of section 14 cannot be available.
and there can be no right to continue 'in po~session. [716 F]
',Madhusudan A Mahafe v. P.M. Gidh and others, 16 Maharashtra Law
Journal, 436 held inapplicable.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 5631 of 1981.
AND
S.L.P. (Civil) No.5632 of 1981 With S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 5698-5701
of 1981.
From the judgment and order dated the 15th July. !981 of the
Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1814, 1965, 1966, 1913
and !815of1981 respectively.
So/i J. SorabJte, P.H. Parekh and Hemant Sharma for the
petitioners in SLP No. 5631 of 1931.
,
D. V. Patel, P.H. Parekh and He·1 ant Sharma for the petitioners
in SLP No. 5632 of 1981.
A nil B. Dewan, S. V. Bhat, R. Satish and E.C. Agarwala Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.