Safrunisa R. Sahebzada & Ors. v. Sadiquali M. Noorni

Shri Ramzan Consequently, respondent issued notice Ali. company terminated tenancy called quit, vacant possession flat. Since vacate premises possession deceased Ramzan Ali, present petitioner a Court Small Causes Bombay, against M/s Tata Sons Ltd. seeking evictiion vacant possession flat, alia; ground Company protection Bombay Rent Act virtue section 3 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Authorised Share Capital of the said Company exceeds more than Rs. 1 Crore. (3)

On being summoned, original defendant- M/s Tata Sons Ltd. appeared and, ultimately, compromised Court. Consent filed. The Company thereunder agreed submit eviction decree Court settlement. Respondent withdrew regard to mesne profits. The company furnished undertaking Court Company vacant possession done, respondent/Decree holder liberty execute the decree. The trial Court passed Decree in terms of the consent terms.

The company, who was supposed to hand over vacant possession respondent result execution proceedings initiated respondent warrant possession obtained executing Court which came to be obstructed by the petitioners.

42 Respondents preferred Ejectment notice No. 2004 Court prayed orders against petitioners, seeking removal flat. In notice, respondents contended respondents trespassers. (4) Petitioners affidavit alia; contending petitioners deceased Ramzan Ali, employee M/s Tata Sons Ltd. protected deemed tenants contemplated section

The claimed through Company (judgment debtor). Petitioners further contended determination tenancy rights Company petitioners became direct tenant respondent under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

7. The petitioners further urged that the consent decree obtained respondents collusion Company suppression material facts. The Court induced a decree playing fraud. It was, thus, prayed that the Obstructionist notice be dismissed with costs.

Petitioner adduced oral and documentary evidence support filing affidavit O. 18 R.4 the Code Civil Procedure. Respondents relied upon terms of the decree.

The trial Court by the impugned order dated

29.8.2005, allowed Obstructionist notice (5) directed removal petitioners direction vacant possession within 3 months further direction if, person possession flat, should removed. The Court alia; deceased a licensee the company, and consequently, he was not protected under section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order and judgment Court

29.8.2005, petitioners preferred appeal before Appellate Bench Small Causes Court. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal in limine and confirm the order of the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the appellate Court, present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Submissions: Submissions: Submissions:

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated submissions before the Courts below, which did not find favour with the Courts below. (6)

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended decree obtained playing Court petitioners representative deceased residing deceased members family entitled protection virtue section 5(11)(c) Bombay Rent 1947, section 7 Maharashtra Control Act, 1999 tenancy devolved them. He, thus, contended the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. Consideration: Consideration: Consideration:

After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners, possible accept either contentions advanced behalf Act, Rent petitioners. Needless mention deceased Razim Ali occupying premises M/s Tata Sons Ltd., employment Company. The licence favour M/s Tata Sons Ltd. considered personal permission licensee licensor. Permission continue immovable property, grantor create interest property. It transferable. Therefore, unlesss advance licence (7) favour Late Ramzan Ali executed licensor, late Ramzan Ali, stretch imagination, become a licensee licensor. Late Ramzan Ali employee M/s Tata Sons Ltd. occupation behalf M/s Tata Sons Ltd. Possession employee treated possession behalf master, behalf M/s Tata Sons Ltd. Likewise, therefore, M/s Tata Sons Ltd. tenant Ramzan Ali claiming through M/s Tata Sons Ltd. decree suffered M/s Tata Sons Ltd. such, heirs can not be allowed to claim protection of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

Since no independent individual right was created favour Ramzan Ali, claimed deceased Ramzan Ali and, therefore, none of the petitioners are occupying suit premises in their own rights.

ors. It will not be out of place to mention that Court Surinder P.S. Pruthi & vs. Commandors B.Y. Wad ors. 1993 Bom.C.R. 371, benefit licensee section 15-A occupant licensee right. In occupying behalf Company thereafter (3) (8) services became a trespasser. It was, thus, company licensee tenant rights occupant/plaintiff. The case being not of tenancy, Rent Act did not apply.

In view of what is stated hereinabove, the petition is devoid of any substance and the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed 8 approach higher Court. This prayer opposed respondents. However, considering interest justice, petitioners granted 8 approach higher Court. Accordingly, petitioners granted 8 subject filing undertaking Court higher Court, vacate premises without obstruction. Undertaking within 2 today, failing decree holder shall be entitled to execute the decree in accordance with law.

(V.C.DAGA,J.)