JUDGMENT - D.K. DESHMUKH, J.:---By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenges the order dated 14-8-1986 passed by the IInd Extra Joint District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 862/1984. That appeal was filed by the respondents challenging the judgment and decree dated 20-7-1984 passed by the IVth Addl. Small Causes Judge, Pune in Civil Suit No. 184/79. That civil suit was filed by the present petitioners, claiming therein that the respondents Shridhar Bhaskar Paranjape and Bhaskar Tukaram Joshi, the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of a final plot of land No. 9 Survey No. 91, Pune. It was alleged that as the defendants did not have enough funds to raise a construction on that plot of land they approached the plaintiffs and an agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants on 24-2-1971. As per that agreement the plaintiffs were to advance an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the defendants. The defendants were to construct a building on that land, which would be suitable for a factory and that after completing the building, a lease would be granted to the plaintiffs of that building for a period of 50 years at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. It was alleged that thereafter the defendants raised construction on the plot. But as per the agreement they did not create lease of the building in favour of the plaintiffs and did not hand over possession of the building to the plaintiffs as agreed to by the agreement. Therefore a suit was filed for a direction to the defendant to execute lease deed as per the agreement dated 24-2-1972 in favour of the plaintiffs. A direction was sought for fixation of the Standard Rent at Rs. 200/- per month and further direction was also sought against the defendants to hand over possession of the building to the plaintiff. The trial Court decided the suit by its order dated 20th July, 1984 and the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant No. 1 to execute lease deed as per the agreement dated 24-2-1971. The Court also directed the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to deliver possession of the building as per the agreement to the plaintiffs. In the appeal filed by the defendant No. 1 the Appellate Court, however, held that the suit for specific performance of contract to grant lease was not tenable under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act and therefore, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendant No. 1, set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Therefore it is the order of the Appellate Court which is challenged by the original plaintiffs in the present petition.

2.Shri Anturkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners urged before me that the suit for specific performance of an agreement to grant lease of the building in favour of the petitioners and/or in the alternative form, to refund of the earnest money, was tenable under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. He submitted that a suit for compensation or for refund of the amount advanced would be tenable under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, because the suit arises out of provisions of section 18 of the Bombay Rent Act. In the submission of the learned Counsel if it is held that a suit for refund of the consideration is tenable under section 28 of the Act and at the same time if it is held that a suit for lease deed, which also arises out of the same agreement is not tenable under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, then it would amount to driving the litigants to two suits, namely, a suit in ordinary Civil Court of general jurisdiction for an executive of a lease deed and the other for compensation or for refund of the earnest money. The learned Counsel by referring to the provisions of Specific Relief Act, pointed out that in a suit for specific performance of a contract, a claim for refund of the earnest money and also a claim for compensation can always be made. By ref

Click Here to Read the rest of this document