1991 (4) TMI 441 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the eviction application filed u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.
2. Whether respondents Nos. 5 and 6 can claim protection u/s 15A of the Bombay Rent Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes and the validity of its orders.
4. Entitlement of compensation for use and occupation of the premises.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Eviction Application:
The appellants argued that the eviction application filed u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was maintainable based on the averments that the tenancy ended with Bhatena's death. The courts below, however, held that the application was not maintainable and the order dated July 14, 1978, was a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the jurisdiction of the court depends on the averments in the plaint, and since the statutory tenancy ended with Bhatena's death, the application was not maintainable.

2. Protection u/s 15A of the Bombay Rent Act:
The key issue was whether respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were entitled to protection as deemed tenants u/s 15A of the Bombay Rent Act. The Supreme Court found that the licence created by Bhatena in favor of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 was valid and subsisting on February 1, 1973. Therefore, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were entitled to protection as deemed tenants under Section 15A.

3. Jurisdiction and Validity of Orders:
The High Court, exercising jurisdiction u/s 227 of the Constitution, set aside the Appellate Bench's finding that respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were protected under Section 15A. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the factual findings of the Appellate Bench, as there was sufficient material to support that the licence was subsisting on February 1, 1973.

4. Entitlement of Compensation:
The Supreme Court directed respondents Nos. 5 and 6 to pay compensation to the appellants for the use and occupation of the premises. The compensation was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 325 per month from October 12, 1971, after adjusting the sum of Rs. 8,575 paid to Bhatena. The Court also directed the payment of arrears and future compensation as per the interim order dated January 15, 1991.

Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of with directions for compensation payment and partial eviction, upholding the protection of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 under Section 15A for the licensed portion of the premises. The obstruction notice was discharged for the licensed portion but upheld for the rest of the premises. No costs were awarded.