Mrs. Kusum Raju Vishkarma & Ors. v. Akbar Hussain Haji Chunna

Mr. A.M.Ranpise, Advocate, for the petitioners. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 28th April, 2010. P.C.

Heard the learned Counsel for the revision applicants/original plaintiffs. None for the respondents.

To state in brief, the plaintiffs filed RAD Suit no.1025 of 1985 for declaration that he has become tenant of defendant no.2/landlord. According to him, sometime in 1962, he was induced in the suit premises by defendant no.1, 2 who was the tenant of the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit premises. According to him, he is in exclusive possession and as he is in possession as a licensee since before 1.2.1973, he be declared to be direct tenant of the landlord i.e. defendant no.2 The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff preferred Appeal No.41/2001. That appeal was also dismissed. Hence the Revision Application.

The Courts below held that the plaintiff is in possession since before

1.2.1973 and he was inducted as a licensee of the defendant No.1. Even though the trial Court had held that the plaintiff is not in exclusive possession, the first appellate Court held that he is in a exclusive possession. The appellate Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 14(2) read with Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”), the plaintiff though deemed to be a tenant cannot become direct tenant of the landlord. Section 14(2) & Sec.15A read as follows :-

14. Certain sub-tenants and licensees to become tenant on determination of tenancy. (1) ..... (2) Where the interest of a licensor, who is a tenant of any premises is determined for any reason, the licensee, who by section 3 15A is deemed to be a tenant shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the terms and conditions of the agreement consistent with the provisions of this Act.

“15A. Certain licensees in occupation on 1st February 1973 to becomes tenants.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or anything contrary in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract where any person is on the 1st day of February 1973 in occupation of any premises, or any part thereof which is not less than a room, as a licensee he shall on that date be deemed to have become, for the purpose of this Act, the tenant of the landlord, in respect of the premises or part thereof, in his occupation. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not affect in any manner the operation of sub-section (1) of section 15 after the date aforesaid.” If the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 15A are read together, it will become clear that by making amendment in 1973, the legislature clearly declared that the tenant would not be entitled to sub-let premises after coming into operation of the said Amendment Act, 1973. Sub-section (2) 4 of Section 15 also makes it clear that such prohibition shall be deemed to have had no effect before the 1st day of February, 1973.

It means if any property was sub-let by the tenant, it would not come within the purview o the prohibition. Section 15A provided that where any person on the 1st day of February 1973 was in occupation of any premises or any part thereof as a licensee, he shall on that date be deemed to have become , for the purpose of the Act, the tenant of the landlord in respect of the premises or part thereof, in his occupation. However, Section 14(2) provides that where the interest of a licensor, who is a tenant of any premises is determined for any reason, the licensee, who by section 15A is deemed to be a tenant shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, be deemed to to have become tenant of the landlord on the terms and conditions of the agreement consistent with the provisions of the Act. From this, it is clear that though the licensee of the original tenant, who was in occupation on or before 1.2.1973, is deemed to be a tenant of the landlord, he becomes tenant of the landlord on the same terms and conditions of the agreement, only when the interest of the original tenant, who had given the premises to the licensee on license, is determined for any reason. In the present case, admittedly, the interest of the original tenant, who was the licensor of the plaintiff has not been determined. Therefore, even though he may be direct tenant, he cannot be declared to be the tenant of the landlord. 5

3. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court in Anandram Chandanmal Munot & Anr. vs. Bansilal Chunilal Kabra & Ors.. AIR 2000 SC 288. In that case also, it was held that the said tenant inducted into the premises before 1973 becomes direct tenant from the date of determination of the tenancy of the main tenant. As the tenancy of the main tenant has not been determined so far, the plaintiff cannot be declared to be direct tenant of the landlord. In view of this position, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.