Q. What are the equivalent citations for Rusi Dinshawji Deboo vs Cawasji Rustomji Patel and Others ?

The equivalence citation are1987 GLH (2) 272 ; AIR 1987 SC 1771 ; JT 1987 (1) SC 570 ; LQ/SC/1987/240 ;

Rusi Dinshawji Deboo Vs. Cawasji Rustomji Patel And Others On 24 February, 1987

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Rusi Dinshawji Deboo vs Cawasji Rustomji Patel and Others?

HONBLE JUSTICE A. P. SEN, HONBLE JUSTICE V. B. ERADI

Open iDraf

Rusi Dinshawji Deboo v. Cawasji Rustomji Patel And Others

Rusi Dinshawji Deboo
v.
Cawasji Rustomji Patel And Others

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 1798 of 1982 | 24-02-1987

1. After hearing Shri T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the appellant we find no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at both by the High Court as well as by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court Bombay that the appellant who entered into possession on the strength of the letter Ex. A dated July 1, 1956 did not acquire the status of a sub-tenant. The tenor of the document merely indicates that the appellant was permitted to occupy the portion of the dismissed premises only as a paying guest. This was further confirmed by the letter dated December 12, 1961, Ex. B (Colly) Written by Smt. Pavri, the original tenant to the landlord

2. Our attention is, however drawn to an earlier letter dated July 2, 1957. Ex. B purporting to have been given by Smt. Pavri to the first appellant. In our opinion, this letter does not amount to the creation of a sub-tenancy. In view of this, we dismiss the appeal. But we direct that the decree for eviction shall not be executed against the appellant till March 31, 1988 subject to the condition that the appellant shall file the usual undertaking in this Court within six weeks from today.

Advocates List

For

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICE A. P. SEN

HON'BLE JUSTICE V. B. ERADI

Eq Citation

1987 GLH (2) 272

AIR 1987 SC 1771

JT 1987 (1) SC 570

LQ/SC/1987/240

HeadNote

Rent Control and Eviction — Subtenancy — Existence of — Held, appellant who entered into possession on strength of letter dt. 1-7-1956 did not acquire status of subtenant — Tenor of document merely indicated that appellant was permitted to occupy portion of dismissed premises only as paying guest — This was further confirmed by letter dt. 12-12-1961 written by original tenant to landlord