SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st April, 1961
B.P. SINHA. C.J.I., S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
P. J. Irani, Appellant
Versus
State of Madras and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 671 of 1957. 1732
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Sachin Chaudhuri, Senior Advocate, Mr. N. A. Palkhiwala, Senior Advocate (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., with them), for Appellant; M/s B. R. Gopalakrishnamachar and T. M. Sen. Advocates for Respondent No. 1 Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Sr. Advocate ( Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate Mr. G. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat & Co., with him), for Respondent No. 2
Judgment
AYYANGAR, J. : (on behalf of himself, Sinha C.J.I. and Mudholkar J.) This is an appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras on a certificate under Arts. 132 and 133(1) of the Constitution, and raises for consideration the constitutionality of S. 13 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 and the legality of an order of the State Government passed thereunder.
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are briefly as follows : The dispute relates to premises No. 1, Blackers Road, Mount Road, Madras - a property which was originally owned by one Sir Haji Ismail Sair. In or about the years 1914 one Venkayya obtained a lease of this property from Sir Haji Ismail Sait and constructed a cinema theatre thereon which he ran under the name of "the Gaiety Theatre". Venkayya was adjudicated an insolvent and the Official Assignee of Madras in whom his estate including the leasehold interest in the suit site vested, obtained a further lease of the property from the representatives of Sir Haji Ismail Sait who had by then diesd for a period of 9 years from March 1926. Thereafter the Official Assignee sold the superstructure of the theatre to one Mrs. Madan to whom he also assigned the unexpired portion of the lease. Mrs. Madan, subsequently, obtained a further lease of the property from the representatives of Sir Haji Ismail Sait s estate for a further period of 7 years from June 1935 Mrs. Madan was thus the owner of the super-structure and the lessee of the site, with a term which would expire in or about May 1942. While one T.S.P.L.P. Chidambaram Chetty who is the second respondent before us obtained a conveyance of all the rights which Mrs. Madan possessed in the super-structure and in the lease for a sum of Rs. 36,000/- under a registered deed dated January 4, 1937, and he ran the cinema house from then.
3. There was litigation between the heirs of Sir Haji Ismail Sait, pending on the original side of the High Court of Madras, and by interim orders passed in two suits (C. S. Nos. 280 and 286 of 1939), the High Court appointed two advocates as Joint Receivers to administer the property in suit. In the the early months of 1940, one J. H. Irani the father of P. J. Irani - the appellant before us - had negotiated with the Receivers for a lease of a property adjacent to No. 1 Blackers Road with a view to construct a cinema theatre thereon. That lease was for a period of 21years and would have expired in or about April May 1961. Irani offered to the Receivers to take a lease also of the property now in dispute and on which the Gaiety theatre stood, also till April-May 1961. The Receivers then moved the Court for directions regarding the grant of the lease. The second respondent, whose term of lease would have expired in 1942, was offered by the Court the option of taking a leased for 21 years from the 1st of May, 1940 but he expressed his unwillingness to take a lease for such a long term. He was, however, willing to have the lease continued for a period of 7 years from the 1st of May 1940 i.e., for 5 years beyond the term of his then existing lease. The Court thereupon passed an order on May 2, 1940, reading :
"The lessee of the Gaiety Theatre (Chidambaram Chetty) will be given a lease of seven years from this date. They will not be given any further option. On the expiry of that period, i.e., from 2nd May 1947 the same may be included in the lease of J. H. Irani at the same rate of rent at which it is being leased to the lessee of the Gaiety Theatres."
In accordance with this order the Receivers of the estate of the late Sir Haji Ismail Sait executed two lease deeds (1) in favour of the second respondent for a period of 7 years from May 1, 1940 and (2) a reversionary lease in favour of J. H. Irani for a period of 13 years - 11 1/2 months commencing from May 1, 1947, i.e., on the expiry of the lease in favour of the second respondent this term being fixed so as to be conterminous with the lease
Followed : Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar
Referred to : Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator of Union Territory
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.