LexSMT. M.M. AMONKAR & OTHERS versus DR. S.A. JOHARI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. B . € .... . ·"" (/ ' H' _, '4·' . SMT. M.M. AMONKAfl &. OTHERS ·i v. DR. S.A. JOHARI Febraury 21, J 91l'4 [ V.'D. TULZAPURJ::AR AND SAnYASACHI MUKHARn; JJ. ] . - ,. «'1-iQtitution of India, .1950, Article 221 Scope ·of-Justification of interference · with a uni:urrent finding of fact recoYifed by bOih the lower courts in- reSjJect of the 1111tur6 of ~ccupation·ofpr~1nises by_ the lessee aµd in favour of the lessor by the High €ourt-Jf'heth1r the less'' of the cabin a ''protected licensee. under th~ Bombay Rent ·A•! (N•. 57 •/1947) •s •mi"d<d hy the Maharashtra Act XVII o/1973. \ _ . Th• Rospondent original plaintiff- a doctor by profession was .in occupation . (~ of~ small cabin (adm~~suring appro':timately.115 sq ft) Whiph is a part of the_ Pl,"crµi- eos of Dr. Amonkar hospital of which the appellilnts are tho propi:ictors. The Life Insurance Corp6ration ·of India is the Owner of the building. The appellants ·furca- toned the ResQondcnts to evict him after issuing a .Q.otice dated March 20, 1973 iaforming tho Re~pondent that his a~tachment as Honorary Surgeon was Ilolnger .)· required with effect from 1-4-1973 and that he should make hls own arrangements __ for his_ private consultation. The ResPondent filed a ·suit in the Sn1aU causes Court of BOmbay ~ecidng a d~laration that h.e was a "protected lincensee,, (having becdme ·a deemed tenant) of the suit premises ·under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act (Acl 57of1947).as amentled by the· Maharashtra Act XVII of 1973 and for injunc- iion rastraining: the appellant-defendants from taking forcible possession. of the --~ suh premises and or disturbing or interfering Witli bis.use anci employment thereof / :OChenvise th3.n in due course of Jaw. ThC suit was resisted by the. appellant-dcfCn- dants on threc•grounds: (a) that the cabin was never givell to the resporid~nt-defen .. danc QJ;l:leave·and licence basis, that' he wtis-~never in exctu.sive' use arid occupation thereof but the user of the cabin was given to .. him because of his'· attachment as Honorm_-y Surgeon to Dr. ·AIT!-onkar hospital tl~rough the good offices Or one Dr . . Rawaiia and after obtaining a writing an ·stamp paper reflecting the true nature and eharacter of the arrangement between.the appellants and the ReSpoildent p1ii.lntitf; (b) that tbe ·cabin in q'uestion Was not "premiseS" within the meaning. of · SectiOn 5(8)(b) of th~ Rent,A~t. in as 'much ·as the sa"me could not'be said to have been given · on. licence "separately" because the respondellt plairtiff was permitted the user . ; thereof only fQr 2-/2 hours in the evening on week days between S P.M. and 7.30 : PM. and for the rest of the time it was being used by the h0spital staff and that one 1 of che i:t1Y'• of ~at ca.bin always remaincd'with the itaff of the hospita~ and henco • .... ~ .. _,; .• , I ' M.M. AMONKAR V. S.A. JOHARI 647 disentitling to any protectio~ of the Rent Act, a·nd (c) that ihe cabin in question. rn;. A ing admittedly'.' a room in the· hospitai•; feJI .. within the eXclusiOnary. part of the dcfin_ition of the .. licensee" given SeCtiOn 5(4A)•and as such wa~ outside the prot~c:- : •. tion conferrer! on ·licensees bY section 15A of the Rent Act; ; ' '- I •, ' . , !he appella1its also fife~ an Ejection A_pf)Jication _<1 gainst th·e res_pondent plain- tiff seeking his eviCtiori from the suit premises undCr secti'on 41. Qf the Presidency Small Caus~s Courts Act on the S;roulld .that the rcSPondent's right t9 occupy the suit cabin had come t9 an cnd,alohg wit_h the termination of his'it'tachment as Hono- rary SUrgeon to Dr. Amonkar· hospita'L The r~spondent plaintiff _resisted the said suit. Both thC.suits_ were therefore heard-togethC_i: and coillmon evidence·recorded._ On an appreciation of the or.ii arid. documentary evjdence ·and 'the surrounding circumstancei, the tr~al court cam~ to t~e cpn'Clusion·that ~the user Of the su~i Cabin~, had been permitted to the· rCsponpent-plainti'ff not on leave' and licence basis but because _of.his attachment as HonorarY "Sur&eon to Dr. Ainonkar Hospital a 1nd' ·that Ex. No .. 1 'Which ~s ~igned by- him after ri:iny reaUsing its Jn1plications, ~as. a genuine writing fcflecting the· true nature of the. arrangement' between th~· parties and so as su~h the reSpondent plaintiff was not entitled to the protectiO.n of s~tion - . l 5A· of "the R·Cnt Act and. triat Whh the tCrmitlation of his attachment as Honora
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.