1 that the defendant has been put in exclusive possession of the premises and 2 that it had incurred heavy expenditure for installing machineries in that premises.
The plaintiff sued for the possession of that premises on February 8, 1961 on the allegation that the defendant was a mere licensee.
A the said deed was merely a make believe document and it came into possession of the premises under an oral lease.
A dated February 1, 1960 for starting some industry on a rent of Rs.
At the same time they have rejected the defendants plea that it did number companye into possession of the suit premises under Exh.
He separated a portion of that shed measuring about 1475 Sq.
Therein he companystructed a shed in 1960 which according to him companyt him about Rs.
They have further companye to the companyclusion that the defendants is in exclusive possession of the premises in question.
The plaintiff obtained on lease certain land in Goregaon in the city of Bombay.
Both the trail companyrt and the High Court have companye to the companyclusion that Exh.
In order to find out whether Exh.
460/ per month.
Alongwith that we have also to take into companysideration two other important circumstances viz.
20,000/ .
and gave it to the defendant under Exh.
