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 Appeal Nos. 396/2015 and 95/2016 and confirmed the eviction decree dated 25 June 2015 passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996. The eviction decree directed the Revision Applicants (Defendant Nos. 1 to 8) to hand over possession of Godown No. 63, Sitaram Mill, Delisle Road, Mumbai to the Plaintiff-Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd.
The Plaintiff had instituted the suit against Defendant No. 1-MBK Enterprises, the original lessee under a 60-year lease dated 2 July 1975, alleging unlawful subletting of the suit premises to Defendant No. 2-Mid-Day Publications Pvt. Ltd., commission of acts contrary to Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, and carrying out structural additions and alterations of a permanent nature without the written permission of the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 contended that the lease covenants entitled it to grant a sublease, and that the premises had been subleased to associate companies which in turn had given the premises on licence to Mid-Day Publications.
The Small Causes Court framed issues including whether Defendant No. 1 had unlawfully sublet the suit premises, whether structural additions and alterations of a permanent nature had been carried out, whether acts of waste contrary to Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act had been committed, and whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. After a full trial, the Small Causes Court decreed the suit for possession, which decree was confirmed by the Appellate Bench, leading to the present revision applications before the High Court.
Catchwords:
civil revision · eviction · unlawful subletting · lease · sublease · Transfer of Property Act · Small Causes Court · structural alterations · possession · landlord and tenant
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.