1. Introduction and Background:

   • Petitioner: Louis Lobo (original defendant), challenges the decree passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in 2005.
   • Respondents: Mohamed Yusuf Moosa (landlord) and legal heirs of Parasmal Surana (purchaser of the property).
   • Issue: Eviction ordered on the ground of unauthorized subletting of the suit premises. Petitioner denies subletting and claims the premises were used by members of the St. Aleixo Club.

2. Facts Leading to the Case:

   • The suit premises are on the third floor of ‘Minoo Mansion,’ Girgaum, Mumbai. Originally, Philip Lobo was the tenant, and after his death, Louis Lobo inherited the tenancy.
   • Landlords allege that Louis Lobo sublet or transferred the premises to third parties.
   • Plaintiffs also sought possession on grounds of suitable alternate accommodation, which was rejected by the Appellate Court.

3. Arguments by the Defendant:

   • The suit premises were taken for a working men’s club (St. Aleixo Club) and not for personal use by Philip Lobo or his family.
   • Rent was paid from club funds, and the club is claimed as a lawful sub-tenant.
   • Defendant argues that club members occupied the premises, not unauthorized tenants.

4. Plaintiffs’ Counterargument:

   • Plaintiffs allege the premises were unlawfully sublet to individuals who had no connection to the club.
   • Testimonies and admissions by witnesses support the claim that the premises were continuously occupied by unauthorized individuals like John Peter Fernandes and Francis Mascarenhas for years.

5. Appellate Court’s Findings:

   • The Appellate Court found no concrete evidence proving the club was the real tenant.
   • Testimonies revealed long-term residence by unauthorized individuals, showing that the premises were treated as permanent homes, contrary to club usage.

6. Defense and Contradiction:

   • The defendant's written statement contains conflicting admissions—initially admitting Philip Lobo as a tenant but later claiming tenancy for the club.
   • This inconsistency weakened the defense’s case, and the argument that club members regularly occupied the premises was dismissed.

7. Legal Precedents:

   • The defense cited M.J. Talegaonkar vs. Tejoomal Lakhmichand Narang to argue that the tenancy was for the club. The court, however, noted differences between the cases, particularly in how rent receipts were issued.

8. Conclusion:

   • The court upheld the Appellate Bench's decision that unauthorized subletting occurred.
   • The writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was sustained.

9. Post-Judgment:

   • The interim order (stay of eviction) was extended for eight weeks to allow for further appeal.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Bombay Rent Act: The primary statute governing the case, particularly in the context of tenancy rights, subletting, and eviction.
• Provisions on Unauthorized Subletting: The court applied legal provisions regarding unauthorized subletting to determine the illegality of transferring possession without landlord approval.

Ratio Decidendi:

• The court held that long-term residence by individuals who were not part of the club, and documentary evidence like voter lists, gas connections, and other records tied to the premises, supported the claim of unauthorized subletting.
• The tenant’s inconsistent defense, coupled with clear admissions, led to the conclusion that the premises were not used for the club’s intended purpose, but for unauthorized residency.

Subjects: Property Law, Rent Control, Tenancy Rights, Unauthorized Subletting, Eviction, Bombay Rent Act, Tenant Rights, Eviction