The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of unregistered documents as evidence for a collateral purpose and the effect of collateral agreements on the terms of a lease.

( 1 ) THE defendants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayanagaram in O. S. No. 8 of 1962 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent in a total sum of Rs. 15,200 with proportionate costs, in an action for damages in respect of a cinema theatre, leased out by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff-respondent leased out the cinema theatre to the 1st defendant on a monthly rental of Rs. 475 in July, 1941. The 2nd defendant is the sub-lessee of the theatre and both of them are made liable for the damage caused to the theatre building.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff-respondent is the following : -The pelaintiff filed an eviction petition in the year 1948, as the 1st defendant fell into arrears of rent. After protracted litigation, the matter ended in a compromise and under the compromise, Exhibit A-20, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 14,500 towards arrears of rent. The compromise also provided that the 1st defendant should make structural alterations and a separate letter (Exhibit A-19) was given by the defendant agreeing to make structural alterations and improvements to the tune of Rs. 10,000. In view of this compromise, the plaintiff agreed to reduce the rent from Rs. 450 to Rs. 400.

( 3 ) A fresh lease deed was. also executed by the first defendant in terms of the compromise on 13th August, 1949 and the lease was for a duration of ten years. The premises was sublet to the 2nd defendant and both of them failed to deliver possession after the expiry of the lease period often years. This led to the plaintiff filing an eviction petition and the Rent Controller ordered eviction of the defendants. The defendants preferred unsuccessfully an appeal to the Subordinate Judge and later a revision to the District Court and a further revision to the High Court. The High court while dismissing the revision petition directed delivery of the demised property within two months from 16th March, 1961. A few days before the date fixed for delivery of possession, the appellants caused considerable damage to the flooring, electrical fittings, other fixtures and other items in the theatre. Ultimately with great difficulty the plaintiff was able to obtain delivery of possession on 21st May 1961. When she took delivery of the theatre the theatre was in such a condition, that it was not fit for use on account of the damage caused to the flooring, furniture, screen, electrical fittings and other items. The 1st defendant was bound under the agreement Exhibit A-19 executed by him on 12th August, 1949 to make structural alterations and improvements to the extent of Rs. 10,000 and he has failed to effect structural improvements which he was bound to do under the scheme of the compromise. Therefore the suit was laid for recovery of this sum of Rs. 10,000 and for die damages caused to the building, furniture and other items. The total claim was for Rs. 25,000.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the 1st defendant was not bound to make any structural alterations at a cost of Rs. 10,000 and after the compromise the 1st defendant executed a registered lease deed (Exhibit A-23) dated 13th August, 1949 and there is no clause or term in this deed enjoining upon the 1st defendant to effect structural alterations at a cost of Rs. 10,000. This fresh lease Exhibit A-23 supersedes the earlier lease as well as the terms in Exhibit A-19 and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 10,000. He next contended that the defendants were willing to effect the necessary repairs to the flooring and wall and deliver possession of the theatre in a good condition to the plaintiff but the plaintiff without allowing the defendants to effect the necessary repairs took delivery of the theatre on 21st May, 1961. The damage if any, was caused by the plaintiff herself with ulterior purposes. The 2nd defendant is not a necessary or proper party as he had stopped screening the pictur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document