The Plaintiffs, who were the landlords of the property known as 'Minoo Mansion' in Mumbai, filed a suit (R.A.E. Suit No. 1952/5871 of 1985) against the Defendant, Louis Lobo, seeking eviction from the third-floor premises. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant had illegally sublet the premises or transferred possession to third parties, which violated the terms of the tenancy agreement. Additionally, the Plaintiffs claimed their bona fide requirement of the premises and sought recovery of possession on the grounds of the Defendant having acquired suitable alternate accommodation.

The Defendant, on the other hand, denied the allegations of unauthorized subletting. He contended that the premises were initially rented in the name of his father, Philip Lobo, but the actual tenant was the "St. Aleixo Club of Calangute," a residential club for working men. According to the Defendant, Philip Lobo acted merely as a manager and the rent was paid from the club’s funds. The Defendant further asserted that the club members, including himself, were the rightful occupants of the premises.

The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the Defendant on the issue of the Defendant acquiring alternate accommodation, but rejected the claims of unauthorized subletting and the Plaintiff’s bona fide requirement. Both parties filed appeals—Defendant through Appeal No. 227 of 2004, challenging the eviction decree, and Plaintiffs through Cross Appeal No. 26 of 2004, contesting the rejection of their subletting and bona fide requirement grounds.

The Appellate Court, in its judgment on December 9, 2005, reversed the Trial Court’s findings on the issue of unauthorized subletting, accepting the Plaintiffs' argument and maintaining the eviction decree. However, the Appellate Court found no merit in the Plaintiffs' plea for eviction based on the Defendant’s acquisition of alternate accommodation. Importantly, the Court dismissed the Defendant’s claim that the premises were rented for the club and ruled that unauthorized subletting had occurred, thereby directing the Defendant to vacate the premises.

The Defendant challenged this decree in the present Petition, arguing that the Appellate Court erred in finding unauthorized subletting, given that the tenancy was originally for the use of the St. Aleixo Club and not for individual use. The Defendant's counsel, Mr. D'Souza, argued that the rent receipts and membership registers of the club proved that the premises were intended for the club's use, not for Philip Lobo or his family. Mr. D'Souza also pointed out that the club was registered in 1989, which further demonstrated that the premises were part of the club's resources and not sublet illegally.

Conversely, the Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Sankpal, pointed out that the Defendant had specifically admitted in his written statement that his father, Philip Lobo, was the monthly tenant of the suit premises. The evidence presented during the trial showed that the premises had been occupied by individuals, such as Mr. John Peter Fernandes and Mr. Francis Mascarenhas, for several years. This long-term occupation suggested that unauthorized subletting had indeed occurred, which was prohibited under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.

The central issue that emerged from the case was whether the Defendant had unlawfully sublet the premises. The Defendant's defense was based on the claim that the tenancy was for the club's use and that individuals residing in the premises were doing so as part of the club’s operations. However, the Court found that the Defendant’s admission in the written statement—that his father was the tenant—contradicted the claim that the club was the actual tenant. The Court noted that even if the club was the intended tenant, the occupation of the premises by individuals for several years without any rotation indicated unlawful subletting.

In its ruling, the Court held that unauthorized subletting had occurred, as evidenced by the long-term residential occupation of the premises by club members and the creation of various documents linking them to the address. The Defendant's reliance on rent receipts and membership registers was not sufficient to overturn the findings of unauthorized subletting. The Court dismissed the Petition, affirming the Appellate Court’s decree for eviction based on unauthorized subletting.

This case underscores the importance of clear admissions and documentary evidence in tenancy disputes, particularly when claims of unauthorized subletting are raised. Even where a complex defense such as the tenancy being created for a club is presented, clear contradictions in the defense or evidence of long-term occupation can lead to the Court favoring the landlord’s claim for eviction.