BISHAMBHAR DAYAL, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal filed by defendant No. 1 arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff sheojee Bhai for ejectment of the two defendants from a building used as a cinema house, and for mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE case had a chequered career which will be shortly stated. But at present the main question for consideration in this appeal is about the rate at which the plaintiff is entitled to set mesne profits from the date when the lease came to an end up to the date of delivery of possession. There are certain other minor points also which will be dealt with at the proper place.

( 3 ) ON 18th August 1951 the plaintiff Sheojee Bhai executed a registered lease of the premises, including the electric fittings and furniture, in favour of the defendants Shyamacharan and D. B. Jadav for ten years at the rate of Rupees 1,600/- per month. This lease was to start from 22nd May 1950 and was to end on 21st May 1960. On 22nd May 1960 the plaintiff demanded possession by a telegraphic notice. The defendant No. 1 replied that there had been an agreement to renew the lease for two years. On 25th June 1960 the present suit was filed.

( 4 ) APART from reciting other facts in the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants were in arrears of Rs. 16,353/-as rent. In paragraph 5 of the plaint it was also alleged that the defendants were liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month from 22nd May 1960 till the date of delivery of possession.

( 5 ) IT appears that the defendant No. 2 D. B. Jadav had separated from the business and only defendant No. 1 contested the suit. He filed a written statement alleging, among others, that there was a verbal agreement for extending the lease for two years and that under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act the defendant could not be ejected. It may be noted here that this plea regarding protection under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act has not been pressed before us, as it is conceded that the Act as it was then in force did not apply to cinema buildings. We, therefore, need not mention this plea any more.

( 6 ) ON 5th July 1961 the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of a Receiver. This application was rejected by the trial Court. Against that order the plaintiff filed an appeal in the High Court which was Miscellaneous Appeal No. 81 of 1961. That appeal was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 13th October 1961 according to a compromise entered into between the parties and according to the statements made by their learned counsel. The defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 24,000/-and to give a solvent security for the realisation of the amount that may be ultimately decreed against him. He also agreed to deposit rs. 1,600/- in Court every month from 1st October 1961. On account of this compromise the application for appointment of a Receiver was not pressed. It is admitted between the parties that ever-since the defendant has kept the promise and has made the payments mentioned in the compromise.

( 7 ) ON 4th August 1962 the plaintiff filed an application under Order 12, R. 6, Civil procedure Code, for a decree for delivery of possession, only, on the ground that now even the two years for which the defendant claimed an extension of the lease had expired and the plaintiff was entitled to possession on the own admission of the defendant. This application was dismissed by the trial Court. Against that order there was a revision in this Court which was allowed on 26th October 1962 and the trial Court was directed to pass a decree for ejectment forthwith. In pursuance of that order the trial Court passed a decree for ejectment on 3rd November 1962. Against that decree First Appeal No. 40 of 1962 was filed by the defendant in this court which was dismissed on 26th February 1964. Against that decision of the high Court the defendant went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also dismis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document