The Scheme also stipulated that all rights of lessee tenants in the original plots stood transferred to the final plots.
5 but companytinued to belong to the respondent.
In 1973 74, the Municipal Corporation auctioned the right, title and interest of Jhunjhunwala and the respondent in plot No.
The case of the appellant was that the respondent got the Corporation to wrongfully exclude the respondents interest from the company veyance.
Hence, of the final plot No.
and Vassanji Hirji, who held 195 sq.
let to M s Dhanji Mavji, 453 sq.
they agreed to let the entire plot to Dhanji Mavji and, there fore, companyld number entertain the appellants request.
In or about 1933 34, with a view to acquire the suit plot and using the same for the rice mill dust room, M s Bombay Bharat Swadeshi Rice Mills took over the appellant.
let to the appellant, 390 sq.
The respondent is a statutory companyporation companystituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 as amended by the Major Port Trust Amendment Act, 1974.
The High Court accepted the finding of the appellate companyrt that the numberice of ejectment was valid numberice and there was numberwaiver of numberice.
In or about 1963, however, the respondent applied for and got final plot No.
In or about October 1977, the respondent issued one months numberice to the appellant to terminate the tenancy.
4 was reconstituted into final plot No.
It also agreed that the respondent was under numberstatutory obligation to give the entire plot to Dhanji Mavji.
Total area of final plot 5 was 1309 sq.
5, the appellant and their associates, it was asserted, held 569 sq.
6 of the suit plot measuring 113.4 sq.
The said Natwar Parekh challenged such exclusion by filing writ petition No.
and final plot 5B 650 sq.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.1986 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
5B 390 sq.
1 in Bombay City came into force.
The appellant, however, asserted that it had offered to pay the revised rent that might be fixed by the respondent.
Between about 1906 and 1932, one Jhunjhunwala was the lessee of plot No.
This, according to the appellant, caused resentment to the respondent, and it offered Plot No.
The Trial Court did number deal with the question of mala fide.
On or about 31st March, 1981 the Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant was admittedly using the plot for a rice mill for over 50 years to the knowledge of the respondent and it would be legitimate to infer that the letting was for a manufacturing purpose.
and the balance 155 sq.
5A and became the tenants occupants of a major portion of plot No.
The petitioners associates who held 70 of the plot 5A, pointed out that the said Vassanji Hirji was number interested and that the entire plot should accordingly be given to them.
The lease was for manufacturing purposes.
4 companyprised of 113.4 sq.
The suit plot and M s Dhanji Mavjis plot fell entirely in final plot 5B and as a result of the sub division, Dhanji Mavji became the tenant occupant of a major portion of plot 5B. It is assert ed that appellants associate firm and Chunilal Gupta fell in plot No.
52/74 in the High Court.
let to M s Vassanji Hirji.
5A. In 197 1 the Municipality renewed the mill licence companyering both the structures.
In this appeal this Court has been asked to examine the fron tiers of judicial review of the action of a statutory au thority, i.e. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, in evicting its tenant and granting the land in question to another tenant.
In Decem ber57, the Town Planning Scheme No.
The respondents declined and instead companymenced eviction proceedings against all the three holders.
Secondly, it was asserted that the premises had been ac quired and used for rice mill for 40 years and accordingly it companyld number be terminated by one month numberice.
The respondent Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay is a statutory authority.
Ag grieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ petition No.
let to two asso ciate firms M s Gordhandas Ranchoddas and M s Chunilal Gupta and 195 sq.
Thirdly, it was asserted, that the numberice of termination, in any event, had been waived by demanding and recovering rent enhanced rent.
K. Singhvi, Brij Bhushan and Anil Kumar Gupta for the Respondent in C.M.P. No.
An associate firm of the appellant M s. Natwar Parekh Sons purchased plot No.
The original plot No.
On 26.7.1976, the writ petition was allowed, and Natwar Parekh are number the owners of plot No.
6 for numberpayment of property taxes.
In the premises, by numberices issued in 197 1 73, the respondent purported to terminate the tenancy of the appellant.
4 number plot 5B which adjoins plot No.
6 and the dust room on the suit plot had a companymon wall and were inter companynected by ducts.
Dhanji Mavji held 390, Vassanji Hirji held 195 sq.
It was stated that the respondents inspectors had regularly visited the premises in question but had never objected to the user of the rice mill dust room.
The appellant filed its written statement and pleaded that the proceedings had been instituted mala fide and just to bene fit Dhanji Mavji and to harass the appellants associates, who had acquired the respondents title to plot number 6.
710/84 under Article 227 of the Constitution.
mts. ,
5 sub divided into final plot 5A 659 sq.
5A to the existing tenants, i.e. the peti tioners associates who held 453 sq.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
19447 of 1988.
From 1957 72, the respondent, it is asserted, companytinued the tenancies of the appellant and its associate firms.
Also the appellant offered to develop final plot 5B jointly with Dhanji Mavji in 1972 76.
6 which adjoins plot 5B which is the suit plot and a building was existing on plot No.
However, in order to appreciate the companytro versy it is necessary to have a companyspectus of the facts involved.
6 but companyld number get the licence from the Municipal ity for the operation of the said rice mill unless satisfac tory arrangement was made for the removal and storage of rice husk in a separate chamber structure.
vis a vis 113.4 sq.
against his existing 390 sq.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 19th November, 1986 of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.
2036 of 1987.
The appellant objected to the offer made to Dhanji Mavji exclu sively and pointed out that the established practice of the respondent was to companytinue the existing tenants occupants on the final plots.
was with the respondent others.
It may be numbered that in December57 original plot No.
On or about 13th January, 1984 the appellate companyrt reversed that decision and also held that the issue of mala fide or arbitrariness was number relevant on the legality of the eviction proceedings.
6 which was tenanted to M s Bombay Bharat Swadeshi Rice Mills, and the said Mills were desirous of operating a rice mill on plot No.
Being a statutory authority, the respondent has been exempted from the operation of the relevant Rent Act.
Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, U.J. Mukhi ja, B.S. Basania, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Arun Banga and D.N. Misra for the Respondent.
Vast areas of South Bombay which are companypletely tenanted, are owned by the respondent.
The rice mill on plot No.
In December, 1977 the respondent filed suits Nos.
Since about 1932, the appellant had been the lessee of the respondent in respect of part of the original plot No.
It is the case of the appellant that in 1970 71, the respondent arbitrarily agreed to let the entire plot 5B including the portion which had been let to and in the possession of the appellant since 1933 to M s. Dhanji Mavji, and thereby agreed to give him 650.6 sq.
The dust room structure was companystructed on the suit plot.
Hence, the numberice of termination was bad.
Aspi Chinai, R.F. Nariman, Miss Darshna Bhogilal, K.K. Lahiri, R. Karanjawala, Ejaz Maqbool and Mrs. Manik Karanja wala for the Appellant.
The respondent, however, asserted that as Dhanji Mavji had been in possession of the major portion of plot No.
The High Court dismissed the said writ petition by the judgment under appeal and upheld the order of eviction.
It is asserted that at the hearing the witnesses of the respondent had admitted that the plot would be given to Dhanji Mavji if the appellant was evicted therefrom.
6 and became the owner thereof.
447 603/77 against the appellant in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay.
