The Plaintiff instituted a Leave and License (L.E. & C.) Suit No. 320/431 of 1981, claiming that a Leave and License Agreement dated 1 March 1972 had been executed with the Defendant for the occupation of a shop (suit premises) for a tenure of 11 months. The agreement expired on 31 January 1973, but the Defendant continued to occupy the premises without renewing the license or paying compensation from October 1972 onwards.

The Plaintiff sought possession of the suit premises, serving a notice of demand on 16 August 1973, but the Defendant refused to vacate. In defense, the Defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable as the Plaintiff did not own the premises, and the property in question belonged to the Indian Railways. The Defendant further claimed that he had become a "protected tenant" under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, which offers protection to certain licensees in occupation as of 1 February 1973.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, finding that the Defendant's license had expired, and directed the Defendant to hand over possession of the suit premises. The Appellate Bench, in its judgment on 5 July 1996, upheld the decision, prompting the present petition.

The core issues in the case revolve around the following points:

License Expiry and Status of Licensee: Did the Defendant remain in possession of the premises as a valid licensee after the expiration of the license on 31 January 1973, and was this sufficient to qualify the Defendant for protection under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act?

Locus Standi of the Plaintiff: Was the Plaintiff entitled to file the suit, given that the Defendant claimed the property was owned by Indian Railways and the Plaintiff’s tenancy had already been terminated by the original landlady?

Application of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act: Did the Defendant qualify for protection as a "protected tenant" under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, which provides certain licensees in occupation on 1 February 1973 with tenant-like protections?

License Expiry and the Status of the Defendant: The Defendant's entry into the suit premises was governed by a Leave and License Agreement executed on 1 March 1972. The terms of the agreement were clear, and the tenure expired on 31 January 1973. After this date, the license between the parties was not renewed. While the Defendant continued to occupy the premises, the Trial Court found no evidence of any implied arrangement for the continuation of the license beyond the expiry date. As such, the Defendant was not considered to be occupying the premises with a valid, subsisting license as of 1 February 1973.

Protected Tenant Status under Section 15A: Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act confers protection on certain licensees in occupation as of 1 February 1973, converting them into tenants. However, to claim this status, the individual must demonstrate that they were in possession of the premises as a valid licensee. The Court noted that the Defendant's license had expired on 31 January 1973, and no payment or other indication of an ongoing relationship had continued beyond that date. Therefore, the Defendant could not claim protection under Section 15A, as the statutory requirements for conversion into a protected tenant were not met.

Estoppel from Questioning Title: The Defendant also raised the issue of the Plaintiff's authority to file the suit, claiming that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the premises and that Indian Railways had initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. However, the Court referred to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, which estops tenants and licensees from challenging the title of their landlord or licensor once they have recognized the landlord’s title at the time of entering the premises. Since the Defendant had entered the premises under the Plaintiff’s authority, he was estopped from questioning the Plaintiff’s title later in the eviction proceedings.

Relevance of Indian Railways' Eviction Proceedings: The Defendant argued that Indian Railways, as the owner of the land, was taking action to evict him. However, the Court found that these proceedings were unrelated to the Plaintiff’s right to seek recovery of possession. The eviction proceedings by Railways were potentially a result of interim orders in place during the pendency of the case, but they did not affect the Plaintiff’s legitimate claim to recover possession.

The Court found no merit in the Petitioner’s challenge to the eviction decree. The Defendant’s occupation of the premises after the expiration of the license did not qualify him for the protections of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act. The Plaintiff, having secured possession of the suit premises, was entitled to seek recovery of possession through the courts.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the concurrent findings of the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench were upheld. The Court emphasized the importance of recognizing the legal implications of expired licenses and the statutory protection available to licensees under the Bombay Rent Act, but also clarified that such protection does not extend to those whose licenses have lapsed.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the legal distinction between licensees and tenants, and the requirements for claiming tenant-like protections under relevant statutes. It also underscores the importance of understanding the estoppel principles under the Indian Evidence Act and their application in landlord-tenant disputes.