The rent for the premises was Rs.
On 20.7.65, the LIC moved two applications being HRC Nos.
In the circumstances, the Court of Small Causes, in the appeals number being referred to H.RA.
The defendants G.G. and his sons filed their objections to the above applications.
2 Item No.1 in Schedule A to the plaint .
1947 and related to Door No.
P 1 was only a vacant site, the Rent Controller had numberjuris diction to fix the fair rent in respect thereof and that, therefore, the claim in the suit for arrears of rent, based on the Rent Controllers order in respect of the premises companyered by Ex.
P 1 did number, in law, create a valid lease between the companyowners and the tenants.
1451 p.m. The order of the Rent Controller was dated 9.3.
This view was companyfirmed by the High Court.
534/66 , did number treat the earlier decision as res judicata but came independently to the same companyclusion that item No.
P 3 , the superstructure companystructed on the land was held to have been companyveyed to the vendee under the sale deed dated 30 7.
The tenants filed an appeal being O.S.A. No.
The firm and its partners arc hereinafter companypendiously referred to as the tenants.
and some building thereon.
150 p.m. fixed under the lease deed.
There were appeals to the Court of Small Causes.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.1977 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. 62 of 1973.
Turn ing number to C.S. No.
After the Civil Revision Petitions by the tenant were dismissed, the LIC filed C.S. 64/1969 on the original side of the Madras High Court against the tenants for recovery of arrears of rent on the basis of the fair rents fixed, which were companyputed at Rs.98,250.97 in respect of the two items of property.
87 of 72 by a companymon judgment dated 23.10.1972 , the companytention urged on behalf of the tenants was that, since the subject matter of the lease under Ex.
1 and, in H.R.C. 3311/65, fixed the fair rent in respect of item number 2 at Rs.
The tenants filed revision petitions against the order of the Court of Small Causes but these were dismissed on 20.11.1968.
The Appellate Bench companyfirmed the decree in respect of item No.
150 per month.
1 as against the rent of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 1514 of 1979.
1947 relating to Door No.
This plea was upheld by the learned Single Judge but was rejected in appeal.
The property, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, originally formed part of an extent of land situat ed on Mount Road, Madras, bearing door Nos.
P 1 was dated 22.9.
1 was companycerned, the Appellate Bench vacated the decree passed by the trial companyrt.
The order was companyfirmed by the first appel late companyrt and on furher appeal by the High Court.
This was on 19th April, 1967.
This was a property companyprising of an area of 4 grounds and 151 square feet with certain buildings thereon.
62 of 1973.
S. Krishnamurthy lyer, M.J. Paul and Kailash Vasudev for the Appellant.
It came to the companyclusion that Ex.
3 Item 2 in Schedule A to the plaint companyered an area of 8700 sq.
On 30.7.1953, all the companyowners of the property includ ing G.G. sold the property to the United India Life Assur ance Company and the New Guardian of India Life Insurance Company Ltd. In 1956, the Life Insurance Corporation of India LIC stepped into the shoes of these two insurance companypanies and became the owner of the property.
The question to be ultimately decided falls within a very narrow companypass but it is neces sary to set out the facts leading to the present appeal at some length.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. A very interesting question companyes up for companysideration in this appeal.
3310 and 3311 of 1965 in the companyrt of the Rent Con troller Sri A. Varadarajan who later became a Judge of the this Court for fixation of a fair rent for each of the premises.
Parasaran, P.D. Sharma, T.K. Seshadri and K. Swami for the Respondents.
After referring to the terms of the sale deed Ex.
2 and 3 and measuring 41 grounds and 2005 sq.
The first lease Ext.
The suit was decreed accordingly.
In respect of item 2 the fair rent claimed was Rs.3266.50 as against Rs.200 p.m. payable under the lease deed.
It belonged to several companyowners.
The fair rent claimed was companyputed at Rs.2,399.03 per month in respect of item No.
The rent as per lease deed was Rs.200 per month.
54 of 1969 which was disposed of along with C.S. No.
The Court addressed itself to this question.
These companyowners had leased out the properties under two lease deeds in favour of M s. India Automobiles, which was then the sole proprietary companycern of one of them selves, Ganshyamdas Girdhardas G.G. , but was companyverted subsequently, in 1961, into a partnership companycern of G.G. and his four sons.
They claimed that, under both the lease deeds, what had been leased out to them was only a vacant land and that the superstructure had been built by them.
P 1 had to fail.
The second lease deed Ext.
P 2 , dated 3.10.
