Case Note & Summary
The case involves two Civil Revision Applications filed by Messrs Miscellenary Marketers Pvt. Ltd. (defendants) against Messrs SunNSand Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiffs) challenging a common judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, dated 08.05.2015. The dispute concerns Shop No.2 admeasuring 200 sq.ft. on the ground floor of SunNSand Hotel, Juhu, Mumbai. The plaintiffs had filed an eviction suit (LE & C Suit No.17/17 of 1996) against the defendants, alleging that the defendants had sublet the premises without consent and that the agreement between them was a lease, not a licence. The defendants had also filed a suit (LD Suit No.59 of 1995) seeking declaration that they were licensees. The Trial Court decreed the eviction suit and dismissed the defendants' suit. The Appellate Bench confirmed the decree and allowed the plaintiffs' cross-objection. The defendants then filed the present revisions. The key legal issues were whether the agreement dated 01.07.1988 was a lease or a licence, and whether the defendants sublet the premises. The court applied the test of exclusive possession and intention, finding that the defendants had exclusive possession and the agreement was for a fixed term with rent, thus constituting a lease. The court also found that the defendants sublet the premises to a third party without the plaintiffs' consent, violating Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act. The court held that the findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse and dismissed the revisions, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Lease vs. Licence - Distinction - Bombay Rent Act, 1947; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court examined whether the agreement between the parties was a lease or a licence, applying the test of exclusive possession and intention of parties. Held that the agreement created a lease as the defendants had exclusive possession and the agreement was for a fixed term with rent, not revocable at will (Paras 10-15). B) Rent Control - Subletting - Unauthorised Subletting - Bombay Rent Act, 1947, Section 15 - The court found that the defendants sublet the premises to a third party without the plaintiffs' consent, which constituted a breach of the Rent Act. Held that subletting without permission is a ground for eviction (Paras 20-25). C) Procedure - Revision Jurisdiction - Scope - Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, Section 115 - The court considered the limited scope of revision under Section 115 CPC, holding that it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a perverse finding. Held that the findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse and hence not interfered with (Paras 30-35).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the agreement dated 01.07.1988 between the parties constituted a lease or a licence; and whether the defendants sublet the premises in contravention of the Bombay Rent Act.
Final Decision
Both Civil Revision Applications are dismissed. The common judgment and order dated 08.05.2015 of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Lease vs. Licence distinction
- Subletting without consent
- Bombay Rent Act applicability
- Transfer of Property Act
- Indian Easements Act
- Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
