The main legal point established in the judgment is the doctrine of frustration as per Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, which applies when an unforeseen event or change of circumstances renders the performance of a contract impossible or impracticable, leading to the termination of the contract.

Hegde, J.

1. The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of his suit i.e., Original Suit No. 52 of 1950-51 in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore. The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment of the trial Court. There is no need to repeat the same. We shall briefly state the facts relevant for the decision of the points at controversy in this Court.

2. The first defendant is the owner of the "Moviland Theatre" (suit property). He leased out the same on 29-12-1941 as per Exhibit L (which is also marked as Exhibit IX). For the purpose of this case we may take it that the second defendant in this suit is the lessee thereunder. The lease was for a period of five years and in the ordinary course, it was to expire at the end of February 1947. As per Exhibit IV dated 2-5-1946, the first defendant demanded possession of the leased property on the termination of the lease. But the second defendant as per Exhibit V sought a renewal of the lease, as per Clause 14 in Exhibit L. After exchange of letters Exhibits IV and V, the first defendant leased the "Moviland Theatre" to the plaintiff as per Exhibit D dated 2-9-1946. The lease was to commence on the termination of the then existing lease in favour of the second defendant. As per Clause 2 of Exhibit D. the rent for the suit property

"shall be payable with effect from the date on which possession of the theatre is made over to the tenant by the landlord, who shall, if necessary, take such steps as may be required to obtain and deliver possession to the tenant as soon as possible."

As the second defendant refused to deliver possession of the suit property on 1-5-1947, the first defendant instituted O. S. No. 112/46-47 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, for possession of the same. The trial Court gave a decree for possession but declined to give a decree for mesne profits. Both the plaintiff as well as the defendants appealed to the High Court against that decree. The appeal filed by the second defendant was numbered as N. A. No. 217/48-49 in the file of the High Court of Mysore. During the pendency of those appeals the first defendant and the second defendant compromised their disputes. In pursuance of that compromise, the second defendant executed a fresh lease deed in favour of the first defendant, agreeing to pay rent at a rate very much higher than that stipulated in Exhibit L. After the said compromise, the first defendant credited on 21-8-1950, a sum of Rs. 21,432-6-0 to the account of the plaintiff in the Bank of Mysore, Ltd., at its head office in Bangalore. It may be noted that at the time of the execution of Exhibit D, and in pursuance of its terms, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to the first defendant as premium. The first defendant purported to refund that sum of Rs. 18,000/- along with interest thereon at 4 1/2 %, when he credited the sum of Rs. 21432-6-0, to the account of the plaintiff. After some correspondence between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the plaintiff returned that sum to the first defendant and thereafter instituted the present suit praying for the following reliefs: (i) Specific Performance of the agreement dated 2-9-1946 (Ex. B); (ii) directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property; (iii) directing an enquiry into the mesne profits in respect of the suit property from the date of suit upto the elate of delivery of possession and directing the defendants to pay the same to the plaintiff; (iv) for interest, costs and such other reliefs as the Court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case; in the alternative he claimed as damages a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- together with interest thereon from the date of suit to date of decree at 6% per annum and with future interest thereon from the date of the decree.

The second defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit for possession on various grounds, out of which only three Were pressed before us.