SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(SC) 392

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. AND A. N. GROVER, J.
THE ALL INDIA FILM CORPORATION LTD., AND OTHERS
Versus
SRI RAJA GYAN NATH AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal Nos. 2416-2417 of 1966, decided on 26th September, 1969
Advocates appeared
Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, Advocates of Messrs. Rajinder Narain & Co. (for Appellants : (In C. A. No. 2416/66) and Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (in C. A. No. 2417/66).
N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (H. P. Wanchoo, Advocate with him) (for Respondent No. 1 (In C.A. No. 2416/66) and the Appellant (In C. A. No. 2417/66).

Advocates:
H.P.VANCHU, Mahinder Narain, N.C.CHATTERJI, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY

Headnote:

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Evacuee Interest Separation Act, 1951 - Section 10 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 111 (c) - Rent Restriction Act - Mortgaged Property - Lease on a rent - Right of lessee - property was declared evacuee property - He had mortgaged building with possession with Malawa Ram and Gainda Mal - Azim Baksh took building on lease on a rent for 11 months from mortgagees - He executed a rent note - There was a condition that renewal on the same terms was not to be refused - Whether tenants could take advantage of provisions of Act, 1949 - Whether by itself or through agents or in partnership or by sub-leasing - Held, As a mortgagor, could claim that mortgagee s action came to an end and there did not subsist any relationship between him and the tenants - High Court reduced mesne profits to Rs. 250/- p. m. which was actual rent paid for building and passage - There is some doubt as to whether this sum included Rs. 100/- for use of passage - However, we think that matter is between purchaser and head lessee -Rent, although on a low side, was actual rent on which premises were held - High Court was, therefore, not wrong in limiting mesne profits to that figure - Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. -These are appeals by certificate granted by the Punjab High Court against the judgment and decree, dated March 19, 1963. The property in dispute is a building in Jullundur City in which there is located a cinema. It was formerly called Chitra Talkies and now is known as Odeon Cinema . The building was constructed in 1933 on land measuring 3 Kanals and 17 Marias. The original owner-one Azim Baksh-migrated to Pakistan in 1947 and this property was declared evacuee property. Before migration Azim Baksh had dealt with this property in several ways. On January 21, 1946, he had mortgaged the building with possession for Rs. 70,000/- with Malawa Ram and Gainda Mal. On January 22, 1946, Azim Baksh took the building on lease on a rent of Rs. 162/8 annas for 11 months from the mortgagees. He executed a rent note. On February 8, 1946, this rent note was cancelled. An endorsement was made on the rent note to the following effect :

"With the consent of Lal Gainda Ram and Malawa Ram, the said rent-deed has been cancelled. Rent for one month may be included in the mortgage amount. The mortgagees are entitled to carry on the aforesaid cinema in any way they like or may give the same on lease to any body else. I shall have no objection."

2. Previously Azim Baksh had rented this building to Sant Ram and Sita Ram on Rs. 150/- per month. After the release of the property the mortgagees leased it to Sita Ram and Sohan Lal on Rs. 200/- per month. This lease was terminated on July 26, 1950. On August, 1951, the mortgagees leased it to the All-India Film Corporation Ltd., Appellant No. 1 (defendent No. 2), on Rs. 250/- per month vide Ex. D-2, W-2/1. The lease was for 5 years in the first instance from September 15, 1951 to September 14, 1956. It was, however, renewable for 10 years by yearly renewals. There was a condition that renewal on the same terms was not to be refused. By this lease, the lessee was given full right to use the property whether by itself or through agents or in partnership or by sub-leasing.

3. Malawa Ram and Gainda Mal partitioned their property and this house fell to the share of Gainda Mal. The lessee company in its turn sublet the premises to defendants 3 to 9 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,250/-. This was on May 16, 1952. Before sub-leasing the premises, the head lessee company had equipped the house with cinema machinery etc. and the sublease included the use of machinery etc.

4. Gainda Mal applied under Evacuee Interest Separation Act, 1951, for separation of his interest. The Competent Officer by his order, dated August 25, 1955, determined the mortgage charge as Rs. 90,807/4 annas and ordered sale of the building and land together with another plot. The respondent in this appeal Raja Gyan Nath purchased the cinema with the land (3 Kanals, 17 Marias) for Rs. 65,000/- on December 3, 1955. The sale certificate was issued on March 3, 1956. The mortgage charge was paid off on April 19, 1958.

5. The purchaser Raja Gyan Nath then filed a suit for possession of this property from the head lessee and the sub-lessees on August 5, 1959, and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,250/- per month. The sub-lessees claimed the benefit of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949). Later the plaintiff gave up his claim to the cinema machinery, furniture and fittings. The trial Judge decreed the claim in full except that mesne profits were reduced to Rs. 500/- per month and half of the costs were disallowed. Defendants 2,4,10 and 11 appealed against the decree to the High Court. The plaintiff cross-objected asking for mesne profits at Rs. 1,250/- with interest at 6% per year and the remaining costs. The High Court affirmed the decree, but reduced mesne profits further from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 250/-per month. The mesne profits were to run from the date of suit till possession with interest at 6% per annum. The High Court granted a certificate to both sides and they have filed their respective appeals.

In t














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top