Mr. Soli Sorabjee, appearing for the petitioner in S.L.P. No. 5631 of 1981, contends that the petitioner must be regarded as a licensee entitled to the benefit of sub-s. (2) of s. 14 read with sub-s. (l) of s. 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. He urges that in virt11e of the definition of "licensee" set forth in sub-s. (4A) of s. 5 of the Act, that is to say, a person who is in occupation of the premises under a subsisting agreement for licence, the petitioner,imust be regarded as a licensee in occupation on February I, 1973, and therefore a tenant falling within the terms of sub-s. (I) of s. 15-A. On that, learned counsel says, the petitioner must he deemed, pursuant to sub-s. (2) of s. 14, to be a tenant of the landlord, the first respondent, on the terms and conditions of the agreement. Now, there can he no doubt that if the petitioner can be said to be a licensee in occupation on February I, 1973 he is entitled to assert that he has become a tenant of the landlord. But a licensee is one who is in occupation under a subsisting agreement for licence. The agreement for licence must be subsisting on the date on which he claims to be a licensee. In the instant case, in order to establish his claim the petitioner must be in occupation on February I, 1973 under an agreement for licence subsisting on that date.
