The Bombay High Court dealt with a dispute over the possession of a rented shop and the alleged subletting and non-use of the premises by the tenant. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of the landlord, ordering the tenants to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent. The tenants appealed to the High Court, challenging the findings on the grounds of subletting and change of use of the premises. However, the High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding no error in their judgments.

1. Background of the Case

• The case involves a dispute between Shri. Narayan Damodar Thakur and Shri. Madanlal Mohanlal Malpani over the possession of a rented shop located in Panvel.
• The landlord, Madanlal Malpani, filed a suit against the tenants for non-use of the premises and subletting the shop without permission.

2. Trial Court’s Judgment

• The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panvel, decreed the suit in favor of the landlord, directing the tenants to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 11,928.
• An inquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was also directed.

3. Appeal in District Court

• The tenants appealed the trial court's decision in the District Court, Panvel.
• The Appellate Court upheld the trial court's findings, rejecting the tenants' claims that they were using the premises as a godown and not subletting.

4. High Court Proceedings

• The tenants filed a Civil Revision Application in the Bombay High Court challenging the Appellate Court's decree.
• The tenants argued that the premises were used as a godown with the landlord's knowledge and that there was no subletting.

5. High Court’s Findings

• The High Court found that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court correctly held that the tenants had breached the terms of the lease by not using the premises for the intended purpose and subletting it to a third party.
• The court also found that the argument of using the shop as a godown did not hold, as it constituted a change of use.

6. Conclusion

• The High Court dismissed the Revision Application, confirming the eviction of the tenants and the payment of arrears, thereby upholding the decisions of the lower courts.