SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.C. GUPTA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Jamnadas Dharamdas, Appellant
Versus
Dr. J. Joseph Farrei and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No.531 of 1970
Decided on 7-5-1980.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. V. Patel, Sr. Advocate (M/s. N. N. Keshwani and R. N. Keshwani, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate (M/s. Adi R. Daruwala, P. G. Gokhale and J. R. Gagrat, Advocates with him), for Respondents.
Bombay Rents Act – Section 12 (3) (b) - Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Vacate And Deliver Peaceful Possession - Land Demised To Him - Constructed On Demised Land - Termination Of Lease Defendant Agreed To Deliver Back - Lease Provided For Determination And Forfeiture - Plaintiff gave to defendant on lease two plots situated at Temple Road for a period of years commencing at yearly rent amount payable in equal quarterly instalments amount in advance - Lease deed provided that defendant was at liberty to erect building and structures on two plots of land - Defendant agreed to pay and discharge all taxes and outgoings imposed on above two plots as also on buildings to be erected by defendant - On expiration of term of years or sooner termination of lease defendant agreed to deliver back possession of two plots to plaintiff free of all buildings erections and structures and levelled and put in good order and condition to satisfaction of plaintiff - Lease provided for determination and forfeiture of lease in event of rents having been allowed to be in arrears for more than days or upon breach of conditions of lease – Held, Court are satisfied that Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to entertain suit of plaintiff not only for possession of land which is premises under Act but also for other reliefs to make decree for possession effective - In this connection plaintiff is entitled to ask for relief regarding superstructures - This incidental or ancillary relief would not take out suit beyond jurisdiction of Small Cause Court - Plea that composite relief had been asked for and that entire plaint ought to be rejected is also unsustainable - In result we agree with contentions of plaintiff that in asking for relief as to possession of land he is entitled to ask for demolition of structures and for grant of vacant possession of plots - Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT
KAILASAM, J.:— This appeal is by the defendant-tenant by certificate granted by the High Court of judicature at Bombay against its judgment dated 21-1-1969 in Special Civil Application No. 1596 of 1965 granting a decree directing that the defendant shall vacate and deliver peaceful possession not only of the land demised to him under the lease in the suit but also of the three buildings which have been constructed on the demised land.
2. By a lease deed dated 14th December, 1948 the plaintiff gave to the defendant on lease two plots Nos. 12 and 13 situated at Sitaladevi Temple Road, Mahim for a period of 15 years commencing from 1st December, 1948 at the yearly rent of Rs.10,200 payable in equal quarterly instalments of Rs.2,550 in advance. The lease deed provided that the defendant was at liberty to erect building and structures on the two plots of land. The defendant agreed to pay and discharge all taxes and outgoings imposed on the above two plots as also on the buildings to be erected by the defendant. On the expiration of the term of 15 years or sooner termination of the lease the defendant agreed to deliver back the possession of the two plots to the plaintiff free of all buildings, erections and structures and levelled and put in good order and condition to the satisfaction of the plaintiff. Cl. IV of the lease provided for determination and forfeiture of the lease in the event of the rents having been allowed to be in arrears for more than 30 days or upon breach of conditions of the lease. The forfeiture clause also provided that upon forfeiture the plaintiff would be entitled to re-enter upon not only the two plots of land but also the structures standing thereon.
3. The defendant defaulted not only in payment of rent but also in payment of taxes due in respect of lands and buildings which he erected. The plaintiff filed a suit in 1951 for ejectment. The defendant filed an application for the fixation of standard rent and the standard rent was fixed at Rs.435 per month from September 1, 1950. A compromise was entered into between the parties in the suit on 5th March, 1954 by which the parties agreed on a rent of Rs.435 per month from September, 1950 to February, 1954.
4. An appeal against the fixation of standard rent of Rs.435 per mensem was disposed of on 28th June, 1955 whereby standard rent was fixed at Rs.620 per month from 1st September, 1950. The defendant again defaulted in payment of rent and taxes. The arrears of rent amounted to Rs.11,472.30 and taxes to the extent of Rs.1,12,053.60 for the period ending 30th September, 1960. The plaintiff by a notice determined and forfeited the lease and called upon the defendant to delivers possession of the land along with structures thereupon. The notice also specified that the notice was not only a notice of forfeiture but also notice under S. 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act). On 1st Dec., 1961 as the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent and the taxes, the plaintiff filed the present suit and prayed for a decree for ejectment against the defendant in respect of the two plots of land and also the buildings and structures standing thereon, and claimed arrears of rent of Rs.11,472.30 and mesne profits at the rate of Rs.620 per month. The defendant filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant in order to get the benefit of the provisions of S.12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rents Act applied for time for making deposit of arrears of rent. The application was taken on the 20th June, 1962 and further time was granted to enable the defendant to make the deposit. Time was extended on several occasions and finally on 6th August 1962, the defendant informed the court that he was not in a position to make any deposit at all.
5. After the issues were framed and the suit was taken up for trial, the defendant once against applied for relief under S. 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.