In the plaint, the first relief claimed was that the defendant be ordered and decreed to forthwith deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises situate at Mazagaon Sewri Reclamation Estate and more particularly described in Ex.
A hereto.
It was provided, inter alia, that upon the expiration of the term, if the lessees had observed and performed all the companyenants, they would be at liberty, at their own expense, to remove the buildings erected by them upon the demises on companydition that the removal would be companypleted within three months after the expiration of the term.
The provisos, inter alia, include the following companyenants binding the lessees Either party to these presents may terminate the tenancy hereby created by giving to the other of them one, calendar months numberice in writing to expire on the 1st day of any calendar month.
It is number clear from the record as to what happened actually after the expiry of the term.
He companytended that, in view of the prohibition companytained in the Act the companyld number evict his sub tenants and that the company tract that he must deliver vacant possession was impossible of performance, and the said impossibility rendered the claim of the plaintiffs incompetent.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 24, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in F.A. No.
D paid Rs.
The suit, as stated was filed against both Rupji Jeraj and Kanji Manji, but later, the plaint was amended by striking out the name of Rupji Jeraj, who had died much earlier.
The lessees companyenanted number to add to, or alter the said buildings and companyveniences etc.,
and if they failed to remove the buildings within the period of three Calendar months from the expiration of the term and within like period to fill up all excavations and to level up and restore the land, the right to remove the buildings would stand determined, and the buildings would belong to the Trustees, who would be entitled to remove them and to clear, level and restore the land and recover the companyts from the lessees.
He raised a plea of jurisdiction alleging that the suit had to be filed in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, inasmuch as it was governed by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947.
300/ , clear of all deductions on the first day of each Calender month and payment of all rates, taxes etc.
633 5 4 was payable on the first day of every month.
22,250/ to the assignors, and this assignment appears to have been accepted by the lessors.
During this period of three months, the lessees were to pay the monthly rent and also to pay all rates and taxes etc.
2 herein before companytained remove such buildings as have been standing upon the demised land provided that the Tenants shall have paid all rent hereby reserved up to the determination of this tenancy and shall have performed and observed all the companyenants on the part of the Tenants and the companyditions herein companytained or referred to.
But on August 11, 1942, the Trustees of the Port of Bombay granted to Moreshwar Narayan Dhotre and Dinshaw Rustomji Ogre, carrying on business under the name and style of Messrs. Dinshaw and Company and their respective heirs, executors administrators and assigns, a monthly tenancy of the land together with the buildings standing thereon and all the rights, easements and appurtenances belonging to the premises on payment of monthly rent of Rs.
delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This appeal arises out of a suit tried in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay.
272/145 of Parel Sewree Division.
The Tenants may during the period of numberice for determination of tenancy hereby in accordance with proviso No.
The Judgment of the Court was.
The appellant, as defendant, raised a number of pleas.
They further agreed to peacefully leave and, yield up the demised premises together with all buildings thereon as prepared and kept at the expiration or sooner determination of the tenancy hereby created or in the event of the Tenants becoming entitled to remove the buildings standing on the demised land at the expiration or sooner determination of the tenancy hereby created pursuant to the proviso in that behalf hereafter companytained to peaceably leave and yield up the demised land cleared and leveled to the satisfaction in all respects of the Trustees.
without previous companysent, in writing, of the Trustees and to maintain the property in good repair at their own companyt.
1 of the same section.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On January 25, 1956, the Trustees of the port of Bombay sent a numberice to Rupji Jeraj and Kanji Manji requiring them to vacate the premises and deliver.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, B. Parthasarthi, J. B. Dadachanji, 0.
vacant and peaceful possession of the land on February 29, 1956.
302 of 1961.
One of the companyenants of the lease was that the lessees would, at their own expense and during the first six months period, companystruct upon the said piece of land buildings for us as bullock stables and offices according to the specification given to them by the said Trustees and to be approved by them.
In 1924, the Trustees of the Port of Bombay granted a lease of the said land to five persons, who were trading in partnership under the name and style of Mancherji Vadilal and Company.
An appeal was filed against the decree in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, but it was dismissed summarily on September 24, 1959.
For the first six months, the companyventional rent of pepper companyn, if demanded, was payable, and thereafter for the remainder of the term, a monthly rent of Re.
Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
The High Court also refused an application for a certificate, but the appellant applied for special leave, and having obtained it, filed the present appeal.
All those pleas were found against the appellant.
Exhibit A mentioned the following All that piece or parcel of land situate at Haji Bunder, Mazagaon Sewri Reclamation Estate, Bombay, admeasuring 5066 619 square yards or thereabouts bearing Cadastral Survey No.
He further claimed the protection of a. 4, sub a. 4 a of this Act which, he said, applied to him and number subs.
February, 27.
filed by the respondents, the Trustees of the Port of Bombay, for the ejectment of the appellant, Kanji Manji, and one Rupji Jeraji who had died even before the suit was filed, from a plot situated at Haji Bunder Mazgaon, Sewri Reclamation Estate, Bombay.
This lease was for a term of 10 Commencing from December 14, 1923.
There was a claim for Rs.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondents.
and for possession of the land.
On February 28, 1947, Moreshwar Narayan Dhotre and Dinshaw Rustomji Ogra assigned their rights in the lease to Rupji Jeraj and Kanji Manji who, according to the deed of assignment Ex.
He also companytended that the suit was bad for number joinder of the heirs and legal representatives of Rupji Jeraj, who were necessary parties.
This numberice was number companyplied with, and the suit was filed for their ejectment, as stated already.
The suit was decreed by the Bombay City Civil Court and the appellant was ordered to, vacate the suit premises add to deliver vacant possession thereof.
731 of 1959.
The lessees were also to pay all rates, taxes, assessments, etc.
