As per case facts, the Union Bank of India filed a suit for eviction against its tenant for default in rent payment and unlawful sub-letting to the respondent. The respondent ... claimed protection as a lawful sub-tenant or a protected licensee under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, citing a lease and license agreement. Both the trial court and the appellate court found unauthorized sub-letting, ruling the agreement a lease, not a license, and ordered eviction. However, the High Court, in its Writ Jurisdiction, reversed these concurrent findings, concluding the respondent was merely a licensee and dismissed the landlord's suit. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court erred in disturbing concurrent findings of fact and misinterpreting the agreement. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts in its writ jurisdiction and whether the agreement between the tenant and the respondent constituted a lease or a license, thereby determining if the respondent was a protected licensee under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Finally, the Supreme Court, reiterating that High Courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in writ jurisdiction, found that both the trial and appellate courts correctly concluded that exclusive possession was given to the respondent, making the agreement a lease and not a license. It noted the respondent's admissions of exclusive use and occupation. Consequently, Section 15-A protection was deemed inapplicable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the eviction decree.