UNION BANK OF INDIA versus CHANDRAKANT GORDHANDAS SHAH

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 14-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
C'HANDRAKANT GORDHANDAS SHAH 
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 
B 
[S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 
Section 15-A. 
C 
Suit-Eviction-Unauthorised sub-letting-Claim for protection as a 
Protected Licensee-Concurrent findings off act as to unauthorised sub-let-
ting-Terms of agreement suggesting that agreement was of lease and not 
. licence--iSection 15-A held inapplicable. 
_ D 
Rent Control-Agreement-Lease or licence-Determination of-Inten-
tion of parties-Exclusive possession-Significance and relevance of. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226. 
Writ Jurisdiction-High Court-Power to _interfere with conament find-
B ings of fact. 
The appellant filed a suit for eviction of its tenant on the grounds of 
default in payment of rent and unlawful sub-letting to the respondent. The· 
respondent, who was impleaded as a party to the suit, contested the case 
F claiming that he was a lawful sub-tenant before May 21, 1959. Alternatively 
on the basis of a lease and licence agreement entered into with the tenant, 
he contended that he was a protected licensee under section 15-A of the 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The 
triJtl court held that _the- claim of the respondent that he had come to 
occupy the premises before May 21, 1959 was ba~eless. On appraisal of 
G evidence, examination of the ter-.ns of the agreement and in the light of the 
surrounding circumstances and also in view of the judgment in Sohan Lal 
Naraindas v. Loxmidas Raghunath Gadit, (1971] 1 S.C.C. 276, the trial 
court held that the .agreement was one of lease and not of licence and 
consequently the respondent was not entitled to protection under section 
H 15-A. Holding that there was unauthorised sub-letting -in favour of the 
542 
-
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. C.G. SHAH 
543 
respondent, the trial court decreed the appellant-landlord's suit. 
The appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court 
and dismissed the appeal while affirming the findings of the trial court. 
A 
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court which discussed the 
evidence afresh and set aside the concurrent finding of the facts of the B 
courts below and held that the respondent was merely a licensee and not 
a tenant. Accordingly, it dismissed the landlord's suit. 
In appeal to this court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant· 
landlord that the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings 
of facts in its writ jurisdiction; read in the context of surrounding cir· C 
cumstances, the agreement was one of lease and not of licence. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is trite that if the trial court and the appellate Court, D 
who are entrusted with the duty of investigating into questiol'S of fact 
record concurrent findings thereon on a proper discussion and apprecia· 
tion of the materials placed before them, the High Court should not 
interfere with or disturb those findings while sitting in judgemnt over the 
same in its writ judisdiction. (547-D] 
E 
Rajbir Kaur v. Chokesiri & Co., (1989] 1 S.C.C. 19, relied on. 
2. Though some of the clauses of the agreement in Khalil Ahmed's 
case are similar to those of the instant case, yet the most important 
distinguishing feature is that while in that case the court found that there F 
was restriction put upon the use of the premises by the appellant therein 
which negatived the case for lease, in the case in hand both the Courts of 
fact found that exclusive possession was given to the respondent. Further 
in both his written statements the respondent admitted that he was in 
exclusive use and occupation of the premises. (547-H, 548-A] 
G 
, Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadi4 (1971] 1 S.C.C. 
276, referred to. 
Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed v. Tafelhussein Samasbhai Barangpur-
wala, .U.R. (1988) SC 184, distinguished. 
H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 86 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.85 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 2188 of 1979. 
B 
Soli J. Sorapjee, D.A. Dave, U.A. Rana and Rajiv Tyagi for Gagrat 
c 
& Co. for the Appellant. 
P.K. Dey for Ms. Rani Jethmalani for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. The only question which falls for determina-
tion in this appe~ is whether the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.