Unlawful Sub-letting by a Licensee Empowers Rent Court to Decree Eviction Against Both Licensee and Occupant

The Respondent No. 1 (a Public Trust) filed an eviction suit against Defendants 1 and 2, alleging they were licensees whose term expired in 1977

The Trust alleged that the Defendants illegally inducted Defendant No. 3 (a company) and Defendant No. 4 (the Applicant/Director) as sub-tenants/trespassers and carried out unauthorized construction

Defendant No. 4 claimed she was a "lawful tenant" since 1986 under an agreement with the Trust’s alleged Power of Attorney and filed a counter-claim for a declaration of tenancy

The Trial Court (CJJD, Mahabaleshwar) decreed the eviction and dismissed the counter-claim

The District Court, Satara, confirmed this in appeal

1. Whether the Rent Court had jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act when the Plaintiff characterized the occupants as "trespassers" or "licensees"

2. Whether a decree for eviction could be passed under the Bombay Rent Act in the absence of specific issues framed under Sections 12 or 13 of the Act

3. Whether the induction of Defendant No. 4 was lawful based on the alleged Power of Attorney and "conducting agreements"

Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to specific courts to entertain suits between landlords and tenants or licensors and licensees

The Supreme Court precedent in Importers and Manufacturers Ltd v. Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala, which established that impleading a sub-tenant (even if called a trespasser) as a "proper party" does not divest the Rent Court of jurisdiction

Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act regarding unlawful sub-letting

The Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Sections 52 and 62) concerning the revocation of licenses by efflux of time

The Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting that although the Plaintiff used the term "licensee," the licenses had expired by 1977, and the Plaintiff specifically pleaded "unlawful sub-tenancy" in breach of the Bombay Rent Act

Crucially, since the Applicant (Defendant 4) herself asserted a "lawful tenancy," the dispute necessarily fell under Section 28's jurisdiction

The Court noted that in Mahabaleshwar, the CJJD exercises both Rent and Ordinary jurisdiction, ensuring no lack of competency

On merits, the Court found the Applicant failed to produce the Power of Attorney that supposedly authorized her induction; thus, her entry was unauthorized

The Appellate Court’s finding of unlawful sub-letting under Section 13(1)(e) was deemed a sufficient ground for eviction, rendering technical arguments about "live cause of action" or specific school requirements moot

The Court held that the Rent Court possessed valid jurisdiction and that the ground of unlawful sub-letting was factually established since the Applicant's induction lacked the Trust's valid consent

The Applicant was ordered to vacate the premises within eight weeks, subject to filing a standard undertaking