Deemed tenancy under Bombay rent law depends on a subsisting licence on 1 February 1973, with Article 227 review limited by perversity.

A person in occupation as a licensee on 1 February 1973 acquires deemed tenancy under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act only if the licence was valid and subsisting on that date. The SC upheld the factual finding, based on correspondence and earlier proceedings, that the occupants remained under a subsisting licence, and held that Article 227 interference was unwarranted absent perversity. It further held that jurisdiction in an eviction proceeding is judged from the averments in the claim application; the Small Causes Court's order was not a nullity, but it could not be enforced against the portion protected by the subsisting licence and deemed tenancy.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the licence granted to the occupants was subsisting on 1 February 1973 so as to attract deemed tenancy under Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; (ii) whether the eviction order obtained under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 was without jurisdiction and a nullity, and to what extent the obstruction notice could be resisted.

Issue (i): whether the licence granted to the occupants was subsisting on 1 February 1973 so as to attract deemed tenancy under Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Analysis: Section 15A applies only where the person was in occupation as a licensee on 1 February 1973, which in turn requires a valid and subsisting licence. A statutory tenant can grant a licence. The material on record, including correspondence and the earlier declaratory proceedings, supported the finding that the occupants continued under a subsisting licence on the relevant date. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was not justified in interfering with that factual finding in the absence of perversity.

Conclusion: The occupants were entitled to protection as deemed tenants under Section 15A for the licensed portion of the premises.

Issue (ii): whether the eviction order obtained under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 was without jurisdiction and a nullity, and to what extent the obstruction notice could be resisted.

Analysis: Jurisdiction is tested from the averments in the claim application. On the averments made in the eviction application against the heirs of the original tenant, the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, and the order against them could not be treated as a nullity. However, as the licensed occupants had acquired protection under Section 15A, they could not be evicted from the licensed portion on the strength of that order. The obstruction notice therefore had to be dealt with differently for the protected and unprotected portions of the premises.

Conclusion: The eviction order was valid against the heirs in respect of the unprotected portion, but it could not be enforced against the portion covered by the subsisting licence and deemed tenancy; the obstruction notice succeeded only to that limited extent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part by granting possession to the appellants of the portion not covered by the protected licence, while preserving the occupants' statutory protection over the licensed portion of the premises.

Ratio Decidendi: A person in occupation as a licensee on 1 February 1973 becomes a deemed tenant only if the licence is valid and subsisting on that date, and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to disturb a factual finding unless it is perverse; an order is not a nullity where jurisdiction can be supported on the averments in the pleading, but it cannot override statutory protection for the covered premises.

---