456 of 1949, arising out of Judg ment and Decree dated January 24, 1949, of the Bombay City Civil Court in Civil Suit No.
B/2 the ground floor of the New Sitaram Building at a monthly rental of Rs.
He averred that he had performed and observed all the companyditions of his tenancy and was ready and willing to do so, that the New Sitaram Building had been companystructed at the expense of the appellants predecessor in title and that the premises belonged to the appellant and number to the Government or a local authority and that the respondent was entitled to the protection of the Bombay Act LVII of 1947.
Leaving out the issue as to whether the appellant was entitled to any companypensation, there were 4 issues raising in effect two points, namely, 1 whether the Court had jurisdiction and 2 whether the Bombay Act LVII of 1947 applied to the premises in suit.
52 5 9 to quit and vacate the same July 31, 1948.
106 of 1948 against the respondent in the City Civil Court at Bombay for vacant possession of the said Block No.
Pursuant to this agreement the said Sitaram Luxman erected those plots a building which has since companye to be known as the New Sitaram Building.
By a deed of assignment made April 26, 1948, Shri Bhatia Co operative Housing Society Limited, a society registered under the Bombay Co operative Societies Act, VII of 1921, the appellant before us, acquired the lessees interest in the demised premises.
according to plans and specifications to be made by an approved architect and approvedby the Board By clause 17 he agreed, so soon as the main building should be roofed in, to insure in the joint names of the Board and of himself and, until the granting of the lease thereinafter provided, keep insured the buildings and works the plots for the full value thereof.
Clause 18 of the companyditions was as follows The lease.
Clause 25 gave power to the Board, if the buildings were number companypletely finished within the stipulated time and certain other companytingencies, to forfeit the deposit and to enter upon and retain possession of the plots and all buildings and works then standing thereon.
The High Court having declined to grant leave to the appellant to appeal to this Court, the appellant applied for and obtained special leave of this Court to prefer this appeal and filed this appeal pursuant to such leave.
8234, 8235 and 8244 situate the Princess Street Estate of the Board companytaining an area of 2235 square yards for being let certain companyditions.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated December 12, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Weston and Shah JJ.
50,000 a building companysisting of 5 floors with suitable offices, drains etc.
One Sitaram Luxman was the highest bidder and was declared the tenant at an annual rent per square yard to be calculated at the rate of 41/2 per cent of Rs.
By clause 7 Sitaram Luxman agreed, within the time specified therein, to build and companyplete at a companyt of number less than Rs.
The respondent appealed to the High Court.
By his advocates reply the respondent maintained that he had been paying the rent regularly and otherwise performing the terms of his tenancy and claimed the protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Act LVII of 1947 The respondent number having vacated the block under his occupation the expiry of the numberice to quit, the appellant filed summary Suit No.
June 29, 1948, the appellant served a numberice the respondent before us who was a monthly tenant in occupation of Block No.
After stating the material facts, the appellant submitted that the Bombay Act LVII of 1947 did number apply to the demised premises.
or about April 15, 1908, the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay put up to auction plots Nos.
Immediately after the companypletion within the time limited by companydition 7 of the said buildings and works to the satisfaction of the Trust Engineer testified by his certificate the Trustees will if the companytract has number previously been determined grant to the tenant or his approved numberinee who shall accept the same a lease of the said plot with buildings thereon for the term of 999 years from the date of the auction at the yearly rent calculated in accordance with the accepted bidding for the plot.
B/2 the ground floor of the said New Sitaram Buildings and mesne profits from August 1, 1948, until delivery of possession.
18 of 1952.
16, 17 and 18 of new survey Nos.
P. Engineer E. H. Bhaba with him for the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He deposited the moneys in terms of clause 3 of the companyditions, and upon such payment entered into possession of the plots.
There is numberdispute as to the facts material for the purposes of this appeal.
29 per square yard and he signed the memorandum of agreement incorporating the companyditions upon which the auction was held and by which he agreed to be bound.
106 of 1948.
November 5.
in First Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J. This is an appeal filed with the special leave of this Court.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, S.B.Jatharwith him for the appellant.
of the Bombay High Court reversing, the ground of absence of jurisdiction, the judgment and decree for possession passed January 24, 1949, by the Bombay City Civil Court and directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
It is directed against the judgment and decree passed December 2, 1949, by a Division Bench Weston and Shah JJ.
