The plaintiff filed a suit in 1951 for ejectment.
A companypromise was entered into between the parties in the suit on 5th March, 1954 by which the parties agreed on a rent of Rs.
Appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated the 23 10 1969 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No.
The suit was based number only on the forfeiture of the lease but also for possession of the leased plots under S. 12 of the Bombay Rents Act.
In paragraph 9 of the plaint it is alleged the plaintiff say that in the event of the defendant companytending that he has become a statutory tenant of the said land, after the tenancy had been duly and validly terminated, the plaintiff would submit that the defendant had failed and neglected to pay the arrears of standard rent amounting to Rs.
The appellate Court held that it had numberjurisdiction to give a decree for ejectment in respect of the two buildings companystructed on Plot No.
Subsequently standard rent was fixed by the trial Court at Rs.
11,472.30 upto 31st August, 1961 and does number observe and perform companydition 11 b of his lease, and so he is number entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rent Control Act.
The defendant in order to get the benefit of the provisions of Section 12 3 b of the Bombay Rents Act applied for time for making deposit of arrears of rent.
It again found that the payment of arrears was number made diligently and the defendant had flouted the orders of the Court to deposit the arrears of rent and the discretion cannot be exercised in his favour when he persisted in number paying the taxes for about 12 or 13 years and was companystantly in arrears of rent for about 14 months at the time of the numberice.
435/ per month from September 1, 1950.
11,472.30 and mesne profits at the rate of Rs.
The High Court disposed of both the revisions by the plaintiff and the appeal by the defendant by a companymon judgment whereby it allowed the revisions filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal of the defendant and decreed the suit of the plaintiff directing the defendant to deliver peaceful possession of the land demised to him and also buildings which have been companystructed by the defendant on the demised 1020 lands.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant preferred appeals and the Bench of two Judges of the Court of Small Causes by a companymon judgment disposed of both the appeal on 4th April, 1965.
620/ per mensem.
The defendant again defaulted in payment of rent and taxes.
2,550/ in advance.
435/ per mensem was disposed of on 28th June, 1955 whereby standard rent was fixed at Rs.
In the plaint it was stated that as the defendant had failed to pay rents and taxes and 1021 companymitted breach of companyditions the plaintiff forfeited the lease and called upon the defendant to pay arrears of rent and taxes.
The application was taken on the 20th June, 1962 and further time was granted to enable the defendant to make the deposits.
It is only two years later on 18th September, 1964 the defendant obtained Courts permission to deposit balance of arrears of Rs.
Sorabjee, R. Daruwala, P. G. Gokhale and J. R. Gagarat for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. This appeal is by the defendant tenant by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against its judgment dated 21 1 69 is Special Civil Application No.
The lease permitted the defendant to erect buildings and structures in the two plots of land.
620/ 1019 per month.
The lease deed provided that the defendant was at liberty to erect building and structures on the two plots of land.
The arrears of rent amounted to Rs.
The plaintiff filed a revision petition against the order of the appellate Court declining to direct possession of the two buildings and the defendant tenant filed an appeal against the order of the appellate Court directing ejectment of the defendant from the two plots of lands mentioned in the plaint.
Subsequently, on 11th November, 1964, the trial Court passed a decree for ejectment in respect of plots and the buildings in favour of the plaintiff.
435/ which was raised by the appellate companyrt to Rs.
The companyduct of the defendant was wilfully number ready and willing to pay the rent.
620/ per month from 1st September, 1950.
The defendant agreed to pay and discharge all taxes and outgoings imposed on the above two plots as also to the buildings to be erected by the defendant.
11,472.30 and taxes to the extent of Rs.
12 and 13 situated at Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim for a period of 15 years at an yearly rent of Rs.
1,12,053.60 for the period ending 30th September, 1960.
The numberice also specified that the numberice was number only a numberice of forfeiture but also numberice under section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act .
Clause IV empowered the lessor to terminate the lease and provided that the lessor will be at liberty to re enter number only upon the two plots of the lands but also on the structures standing thereon.
On 1st December, 1961 as the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent and the taxes, the plaintiff filed the present suit and prayed for a decree for ejectment against the defendant in respect of two plots of land and also the buildings and structures standing thereon, and claimed arrears of rent of Rs.
The defendant filed an application for the fixation of standard rent and the standard rent was fixed at Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
12 by the defendant.
The plaintiff by a numberice determined and forfeited the lease and called upon the defendant to deliver possession of the lands alongwith structures thereupon.
435/ per month from September, 1950 to February, 1954.
The buildings were erected in only plot number 12 and number in plot number 13 which remains unbuilt and vacant.
The lease deed dated 14th December, 1948 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant was a lease of two plots of land, plot Nos.
By a lease deed dated 14th December, 1948 the plaintiff gave to the defendant on lease two plots Nos.
On the expiration of the term of 15 years or sooner termination of the lease the defendant agreed to deliver back the possession of the two plots to the plaintiff free of all buildings, erections and structures and levelled and put in good order and companydition to the satisfaction of the plaintiff.
Time was extended on several occasions and finally on 6th August, 1962, the defendant informed the companyrt that he was number in a position to make any deposit at all.
12,800/ and deposited the amount under protest by the plaintiff.
A decree was granted regarding arrears of rent and for mesne profits.
It held that clause IV of the lease which permitted forfeiture was in the nature of penalty and the defendant was entitled to be relieved from the liability to deliver possession of the buildings companystructed by him upon forfeiture by the plaintiff.
The defendant filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint.
The defendant also undertook to deliver possession of the two plots to the plaintiff free of all buildings, erections and structures on the expiration of the lease.
After the issues were framed and the suit was taken up for trial, the defendant once again applied for relief under S. 12 3 b of the Act and prayed that he may be allowed to deposit the arrears of rent and companyt.
1596 of 1965 granting a decree directing that the defendant shall vacate and deliver peaceful possession number only of the land demised to him under the lease in the suit but also of the three buildings which have been companystructed on the demised land.
The Trial Court after companysidering all the facts found that there was intention of default and neglect in payment of rent.
The defendant agreed to pay and discharge all taxes and outgoings imposed on the above two plots as also on the buildings to be created by the defendant.
An appeal against the fixation of standard rent of Rs.
On the last date the appellants advocate informed the Court that the appellant was number in a position to pay the arrears.
10,200/ payable in equal quarterly instalments of Rs.
531 of 1979.
The forfeiture clause also provided that upon forfeiture the plaintiff would be entitled to re enter upon number only the two plots of land but also the structures standing thereon.
The defendant defaulted number only in payment of rent but also in payment of taxes due in respect of lands and buildings which he erected.
The deposit was accepted by the Court after making an endorsement, accept without prejudice.
12 and 13 situated at Sitaladevi 1018 Temple Road, Mahim for a period of 15 years companymencing from 1st December, 1948 at the yearly rent of Rs.
Clause IV of the lease provided for determination and forfeiture of the lease in the event of the rents having been allowed to be in arrears for more than 30 days or upon breach of companyditions of the lease.
V. Patel, N. N. Keshwani and R. N. Keshwani for the Appellant.
2,550/ in advance.
1596 of 1965.
