Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
These Civil Revision Applications were filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment and order dated 12 January 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which dismissed the appeals and confirmed an eviction decree dated 25 June 2015 passed in R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff-landlord, Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd., seeking recovery of possession of Godown No. 63 in Sitaram Mill, Delisle Road, Mumbai, on grounds of unlawful subletting, acts contrary to Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, and unauthorised structural alterations carried out by the tenant and sub-tenants.
The plaintiff had granted a 60-year lease of 8800 sq. ft. of the suit premises to Defendant No. 1-MBK Enterprises at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,488/- by Agreement dated 2 July 1975. On finding Defendant No. 2-Mid-Day Publications Pvt. Ltd. in occupation without consent, the plaintiff filed the suit. During the proceedings, the suit was amended to implead additional defendants, including associate companies of Defendant No. 1 to whom sublease had allegedly been granted and an individual defendant, following disclosures made by the original tenant.
The primary questions arising for consideration in the revision applications related to whether the subletting by the original lessee in favour of its associate companies and the subsequent arrangement with Mid-Day constituted unlawful subletting, whether structural alterations amounted to waste contrary to Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, and whether the courts below had correctly exercised jurisdiction in decreeing possession in favour of the plaintiff.
Catchwords:
civil revision application · eviction decree · unlawful subletting · lease · sublease · Transfer of Property Act · Section 108 · structural alterations · Small Causes Court · landlord and tenant · recovery of possession · associate companies · licence · waste
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.