Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In paragraph 6 of the application, the Insurer contended that though the eviction suit was filed before the Small Causes Tapadia RR/B. 6 / 45 WP/2442/1994&1422/1996 Court and Sevakram took steps to defend the same, it transpired that Sevakram had unauthorisedly and unlawfully sub-let or given on licence, the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred interest therein to M/s U.P.Handlooms Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') for unlawful gain. In paragraph 7, it was contended that the Corporation not only unlawfully occupied the suit premises but also carried out illegal and unauthorisedly structural changes by constructing a mezzanine floor in the suit premises. In paragraph 9, the Insurer claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 48,000/- per month with effect from 1.9.1983.

Though Sevakram received the notice, vacant possession was not given to Insurer in terms of the said notice and thus she became unauthorised occupant with effect from 1.9.1983;

(ii) Even though the suit for eviction was filed, Sevakram had unauthorisedly and unlawfully sub-let or given on licence the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred interest therein to Corporation.

(iii) Corporation, besides occupying unauthorisedly the suit premises, also carried out illegal and unauthorized structural changes by constructing mezzanine floor in the premises.

12. The Corporation filed Written Statement dated 17.2.1992 opposing the application. It is contended that issue as to whether the Corporation is a lawful sub-tenant or not under the Bombay Rent Act is pending adjudication in R.A.D Suit No.2360 of 1987 filed in the Small causes Court having exclusive jurisdiction to determine the said issue. It was, therefore, contended that if the Estate Officer proceeds with the proceeding, it would not only amount to interference with due course of administration of justice by the Court of Small Causes Bombay but also seriously prejudice the interest of the Corporation. In the circumstances, Tapadia RR/B. 11 / 45 WP/2442/1994&1422/1996 Estate Officer ought to desist from going ahead with the proceedings. Reference was also made to Guidelines issued by the Central Government to contend that Estate Officer ought to follow these Guidelines and withdraw the proceedings. Service of notice dated 19.7.1983 as also its validity was denied. Determination of tenancy was also denied. In paragraph 8, the Corporation contended that Sevakram had sub-let a well demarcated portion of the said premises along with mezzanine floor to Corporation with effect from 1.4.1977. Demarcated and defined portion of the said premises is about 3/4 th area of shop no.8 on the ground floor. The subletting was done with the consent, knowledge and acquiescence of the Insurer. Since 1.4.1977 the Corporation is in occupation as lawful sub-tenant and carries on their business therefrom openly and to the knowledge of all concerned. In any case, by conduct the insurer had waived objection and is estopped from contending that the Corporation is in unauthorized and/or unlawful occupation of the premises or from treating its occupation as unauthorized. Corporation also denied that it carried out illegal and/or structural changes by constructing a mezzanine floor, as alleged or otherwise. The mezzanine floor was already in existence when the premises were sublet in the year 1977. Existence of mezzanine floor in 1977 was with the knowledge of the Insurer. The insurer is now estopped from contending that mezzanine Tapadia RR/B. 12 / 45 WP/2442/1994&1422/1996 floor is illegal and/or unauthorized, particularly in view of their knowledge, consent and acquiescence and also because of waiver.