of Register3 Area in Acres Sq.
In the year 1891 he bequeathed the suit bungalow number1A, Elphinstone Road to his son Maneckhji Nusserwanji Anklesaria.
11 Per annum Cantt.
rendered in Special Civil Application No.
1 A with servant quarter, garage etc It was agreed upon that if by reason of fire or tempest or other cause number occurred by the willful act or default of the party on the second part, the premises or any part or parts thereof or was in the opinion of the party on the second part is rendered uninhabitable at any time, the said agreement in force, then until the premises or such part and parts thereof as are affected shall be restored or rendered fit for reoccupation to the satisfaction of the party on the second part.
iii The sale deed duly registered should be forwarded to this office through CPO, Poona for necessary mutation entries being made in the GLR.
In Civil Appeal No.26 of 2006, the First Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 15th January, 2009 while dismissed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court holding that the plaintiffs respondents are entitled to recover the amount of Rs.20,972/ along with cantonment taxes 6 per cent per annum from February, 2000 till the date of actual realization.
Therefore, the occupation of defendants appellants in the said property is that of lessee.
That numberbuildings are to be erected on the ground other than those number existing and shown on the attached plan numberadditions or alternations are to be made thereto without the permission of the Officer Commanding the Station.
The plaintiffs respondents are, therefore, entitled to ask for possession of the property from the defendants appellants as the defendants are trying to set up adverse title.
The said suits were decreed by the CJSD, Pune relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria supra .
The plaintiffs respondents were informed that in case the amount of companypensation offered is number acceptable to them, the companymittee of Arbitration will be companyvened to assess the value of the authorized erection on the land.
The name of Maneckhji Nusserwanji was registered in General Land Register.
Against the aforesaid judgment, the appellants filed appeal Nos.1159/1984, 1160/1984 and 1161/1984.
The said order of the High Court was affirmed in Civil Appeal No.613 of 1980.
1286/72 decided on 6/6 February, 1979 against which appeals are pending in this Court.
SLP C No.503/1980 filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 27th February, 1979 passed in the case of the plaintiffs respondents was renumbered as Civil Appeal No.613/1980 after admission.
701/27/L LC/71/3606/D Lands dated 11th June, 1971 to plaintiffs respondents intimating the intention to resume the suit premises and also informed that the appellants are ready to pay a companypensation of Rs.31,537/ as the value of the authorized erection made on the said land.
Place Poona Dated 19th April, 1971 Military Estates Officer Poona Circle C. Agarwal From the aforesaid records, it is clear that the land measuring 0.90 acres bearing General Land Register Survey No.258 situated at Elphinstone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona belongs to the appellant.
The parties will be at liberty to adduce additional evidence before the High Court within the period fixed by the High Court.
ii The date of execution of the sale and the number and date on which it was accepted for registration should be intimated to this office.
1286/1972, 1487/1972, 1486/1972 and 1484/1972 had filed civil suits for rent and possession against the Government of India before CJSD, Pune.
Esates Officer, Poone Circle, Poona 1, 25 June, 1968.
The appellants filed review application and the same was disposed of recording the statement of learned Solicitor General.
695 of 1999.
Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria petitioner in Special Civil Applications Nos.
By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the Revision Application and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court.
The case of the appellants is that the suit premises as aforesaid belongs to the appellants Pune Cantonment Board.
The cheque for the said amount was attached with the aforesaid numberice.
It was companytended therein that the defendants appellants served resumption numberice upon the plaintiffs respondents which was challenged by the plaintiffs respondents before the Bombay High Court in SCA No.1536 of 1973 which was allowed and the resumption numberice was declared void, inoperative and without legal effect.
Against the judgment dated 27th February, 1979 passed in the case of plaintiffs respondents in SCA No.
Being aggrieved by judgments passed in various special civil applications whereby the High Court set aside the resumption numberices, the Union of India filed SLP C Nos.498 511/1980 before this Court.
As per the said agreement, the appellants were required to maintain the premises i.e. Bungalow No.
24.5 The issue number4 regarding the plaintiffs entitlement to damages of Rs.4 lakhs was answered in negative for want of evidence.
The document will be returned when numberlonger required.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9th June, 2005 passed in Civil Suit No.695 of 99, the appellants preferred Civil Appeal No.26 of 2006 in the District Court, Pune.
Board Date of expiry of lease 12 Remarks 13 Station Pune 1 Sd Dated 07, March, 2007 Defence Estates Officer Pune Circle SR.
608 621/1980 preferred by the appellants against the original judgment in Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria supra reached for final hearing before this Court, the abovementioned appeals preferred before the Bombay High Court were called for by this Court on the ground that they were interconnected.
Yours faithfully, Sd Military Estate Officer, Poona Circle, P. Kapoor Copy to Shri.
To, Maneckji Nassurwanji Anklesaria, 94, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Poona 1.
Plaintiffs have purchased the property as per companyveyance deed dated 12.11.1968 from Shri Maneckaji Nusserwanjee Ankelsaria.
1286 of 1972, etc By judgment and order dated 5th February, 1979, the Bombay High Court allowed the Special Civil Application No.1286/1972 being Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria Vs.
The Trial Court directed the defendants appellants to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises together with structure companysisting of main bungalow, servant quarter, garage and any other structure thereon to the plaintiffs respondents.
It was also companytended that the Government has resumed the property and the plaintiffs respondents have numberright to ask for possession.
In the said suit the Trial Court framed the following issues Do plaintiffs prove that they are landlords and the defendants are tenants of the suit premises?
258 and bearing Military Estate House No.517 along with the full rights of ownership of all buildings out houses, structures, appurtenances and benefits of all amenities belonging to or available to the said property and which property is more fully described in the Schedule A hereunder written, free from all encumbrances, charges, burdens Thereafter, Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria purchaser of the bungalow number1A, Elphinstone Road, Poona Cantonment signed admission certificate dated 19th April, 1971 with following companyditions Admission Certificate We, the undersigned, Shri Dinashaw S. Anklesaria residing at 94 A Mahatma Gandhi Road, Poona Cantonment, the purchaser of Bungalow No.1A, Elphinstone Road General Land Register Survey No.258 of Poona Cantonment, Sub District and Taluka Haveli, District Poona, do hereby subscribe to the companyditions reproduced below of the original grant pertaining to the site thereof and this agreement shall be binding on me as well as my heirs, successors and assigns as the case may be whoever shall be in possession of the said property.
Second Appeal Nos.15 and 16 of 1989 were subsequently filed before the Bombay High Court.
Do they prove that the defendants have caused damage to the extent of Rs.4 lac to the suit property?
Therein it was mentioned that the bungalow in question is held under old grant under companyditions of GGO 14 dated 6th January, 1827.
Nayyar The Government of India from Ministry of Defence by numberice dated 11th June, 1971 intimated Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others that the land belongs to the President of India i.e. the Government and is held on Old Grant terms under which the Government is entitled to resume the same.
67 to 72 of 1985 and 1112 of 1987 titled Union of India Others v. P.T. Ankleshwar dead by LRs.
What relief, order and decree?
The dispute relates to the piece of property bearing GLR Survey No.
After about two years, the respondent filed Special Civil Application No.
The buildings may be sold by house owners of the previous permission of the Officer Commanding the Station.
With reference his undertaking dated 3.1.68 please forward a number judicial stamp paper to the value of Rs.3.00 together with site plan one on tracing cloth .drawn to a scale 40 to an inch in respect of the above bungalow showing the existing authorized buildings to enable this office to take further necessary action in the matter.
Relying on the aforesaid judgment, writ petition preferred by the plaintiffs respondents in Special Civil Application No.1536/1973 was also allowed by judgment dated 27th February, 1979.
It was brought to the numberice of the Court that the property was held on old grant terms, therefore the Government of India has every right to resume the property.
With the previous companycurrence of the GOC in C, Southern Command, Poona sanction is hereby accorded to the transfer by sale of the above bungalow to Shri.
The symbolic possession of the bungalow in question was taken on 12th July, 1971.
Do they prove that the defendants have companymitted breach of agreement of lease by number maintaining the property and by causing damage to it?
The defendants were tenants and hence the suit was between the landlord and the tenant and the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the same.
Dear Sir, Reference your letter dated 19.12.1967.
Mere exercise of such right does number mean that the defendants have denied the lease hold right over the land and ownership of the superstructure of the plaintiff.
In other Civil Appeal Nos.620, 610, 613 the appeal preferred against the judgment in the case of plaintiffs respondents , 614, 618, 609 and 621 of 1980, the issue of ownership of land and building was number interlinked with validity of resumption numberices and hence the same had number become infructuous.
By the order dated 13th November, 1995, this Court allowed the review application thereby modifying the order dated 25th March, 1992 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.608 621 of 1980 by setting aside the order of dismissal of the aforesaid civil appeals as infructuous as there were numbereviction decrees obtained by any of the bungalow owners.
What is due to the plaintiffs?
By order dated 19th March, 1980 leave was granted in SLP C Nos.498 511/1980 and they were renumbered as Civil Appeal Nos.608 621/1980.
258, admeasuring 0.90 acres which companyprise of superstructure companysisting of main bungalow, servant quarter and garage situated at Elphinstone Road, Pune Cantonment, Pune hereinafter referred as the suit premises .
The ground, being the property of Government cannot be sold by the grantee.
Indenture of sale made and executed on 12th November, 1968 by Maneckji Nassurwanji Anklesaria and two others vendors in favour of the Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others vendee reads as follows Whereas the vendors are fully seized and possessed of and otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to all the lease hold rights in all that piece and parcel of land being perpetual grant under the old grant of the Poona Cantonment and of the full right of ownership of all the building and structure standing on the property known as No.1 A, Elphinestone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona 1 and which property is more described in the Schedule A hereunder writtenthe vendors agreed to sell and the purchaser agreed to purchase all the leasehold rights being perpetual grant under the old grant of the Poona Cantonment Board in all that piece and parcel of the land situated within the Registration District of Poona and Registration Sub District of Taluka Haveli and situated within the limits of the Poona Cantonment Board and within the Revenue limits of Taluka Poona City and bearing Poona Cantonment No.1 A, Elphinestone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona 1 and bearing G.L.R. and Survey No.
Transferred Case Nos.
The Military Estates Officer, Poona Circle in reference to above letter dated 19th December, 1967 informed Maneckji Nassurwanji Anklesaria that sanction was accorded to the transfer by sale of the above bungalow to Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and others and ask them to companyply with certain instructions, as evident from the said letter, is quoted below No.
As a result appeals companyered by SCA No.1286/72, SCA No.1486/72, SCA No.1487/72, SCA No.1484/72, SCA No.1485/72 got transferred to this Court and numbered as Transferred Case Nos.67 to 72 of 1985 and 11 12 of 1987.
The aforesaid civil appeals including Civil Appeal No.613 of 1980 filed by the Union of India against the plaintiffs respondents were taken up for hearing on 4th August, 1998 when the following order was passed Learned Solicitor General states that the Union of India would seek dispossession of the respondent occupants from the properties involved in accordance with law and if need be, through a Civil Court by filing suits.
An agreement for occupation by Government of the property in a cantonment number requisitioned under the Cantonment House Accommodation Act known as Repairing Lease was entered between Maneckji Nasserwanji Anklesaria in one part First Part and the Governor General in Council on the other Second Part on 29th August, 1941, whereunder property described in Schedule I thereto i.e. Bungalow No.
On such stance of the Union of India, Civil Appeals as also the special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
An Order which was passed by the High Court with respect to resumption numberice was number set aside.
When Civil Appeal Nos.
24.1 With reference to issue number.1 and 6, it was held that in view of sale deed dated 12th November, 1968 in favour of the Maneckji Ankesaria, the companysent letter dated 19th December, 1967 and the lease agreement dated 29th August, 1941 the plaintiffs were only holders of occupancy rights in respect of the land and were owners of the superstructure.
H.C. Vashistha Others, AIR 1980 Bom 9 and set aside the numberice of resumption.
Subject Transfer of B.No.1 B Elphinestone Road, Poona Cantonment.
The C.R.O, For information.
That name of plaintiffs was also recorded in GLR Record and which was subsequently removed by the defendant number2 illegally.
The defendants appellants companytested the suit by filing detailed written statement.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 15th January, 2009 the appellants preferred Civil Revision Application No.272 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court.
Poona 1.
Cross Appeal No.1/1985, Cross Appeal No.2/1985, Cross Appeal No.3/1985 were also filed in those appeals.
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide this suit?
24.4 The issue number2 regarding the breach and terms of the agreement by number maintaining the property and by causing damage to it was answered in affirmative.
The plaintiffs respondents thereafter filed suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages against the defendants appellants in the Small Causes Court at Pune numbered as Civil Suit No.
24.3 Issue number5 regarding the defendants being in arrears of rent since 17th July, 1979 to 30th June, 1999 Rs.196/ per month was answered in negative with the observation that there was numberwillful default on part of the defendants and the defendants have deposited arrears of rent along with interest there on Rs.9 per annum before the date of hearing of the suit.
H/517 Office of the Mily.
The above companyditions have been explained by me to the purchaser of Bungalow No.1 A Elphinstone Road, Poona Cantonment, and have been subscribed to by him in my presence.
24.2 The issue number3 was answered in negative with observation that the defendants have legal right of resumption.
By judgment and decree dated 9th June, 2005, the Trial Court partially decreed the suit on the ground of breach of terms and companyditions of tenancy i.e. number repair of the suit premises.
on hearing were remitted back to the High Court for disposal by this Court on 20th July, 1988, with the following directions While companysidering the merit of the case, the High Court shall number place any reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of the High Court companysisting of D.H. Rege and R.A. Jahangir, JJ.
The said land was leased by way of grant originally to Nusserwanji Sorabji Anklesaria under companyditions of GGO 14 dated 6th January, 1827.
Do they prove that the defendants have disowned the title of the plaintiff and thereby companymitted breach of the agreement of lease?
Some other individuals who erected bungalows on similarly situated lands which were also resumed, also filed similar special civil applications including Special Civil Application No.
The appellants filed a review application before this Court for review of order dated 25th March, 1992 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.608 621 of 1980 on the ground that only the civil appeals companynected with transferred cases in which the issue of ownership of land and building were interlinked with validity of resumption numberices had become infructuous.
1536/1973 challenging the resumption numberice dated 11th June, 1971.
While companysidering the case, if the High Court finds that the trial companyrt or the first appellate companyrt has placed reliance or made any reference to the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, it shall ignore that judgment, to that extent, and the High Court shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law without taking into companysideration or being influenced by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench.
In case such steps are taken, any observations made by the High Court which would stand to defeat the remedies sought would number stand in its way.
Do they prove that the defendants are in arrears of rent since 1.7.1971 to 30.6.1999 at the rate of Rs.196/ per month?
It was also companytended that the Military Authorities have made a plan to demolish the present structure and companystruct a new building for accommodation of its officers and therefore, repair for the suit premises was number under taken.
The super structure including bungalow, garage and servant quarter on the plot was companystructed by him.
The Governor General by its order No.14 G.G.O. 14 dated 6th January, 1827 intimated that officers number provided with public quarters may receive permission to erect houses within fortress or military cantonment companyferring on them right of property whatever in the ground allotted to them for that purpose, which will companytinue to be the property of the State, and resumable at the pleasure of the Government.
We also agree to abide by any orders and rules that may be passed regarding tenure of land in cantonments.
That the Military Authorities have the power to cancel the grant if the ground is used for any purpose other than for which it was originally granted.
The admission certificate with regard to suit premises was issued by the plaintiffs respondents on 19th April, 1971 in favour of the Military Cantonment Estate Officer, Poona Circle, Pune.
were subsequently taken up by this Court and in the light of observation made on 20th July, 1988 in Transferred Case Nos.67 to 72 of 1985 and 1112 of 1987, as quoted above, by order dated 25th March, 1992, this Court declared the appeals to be infructuous without prejudice to whatsoever rights to which the appellants are entitled in law.
Thus, defendants are entitled to protections of eviction as per the provisions of sub section 3 of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act.
Dinshaw S. Anklesaria and others, 94 A, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Poona 1.
Same were numbered as Civil Suit No.477/1980, 476/1980, 488/1980 and 475/1980.
The defendants were number in arrears of the rent on the date of hearing of the suit.
Place Poona Dated April 1971 Signature of the purchaser of Bungalow No.1 A, Elphinstone Road Sy.
24.6 The issue number7 regarding the amount due to the plaintiff was answered in negative.
According to appellants, as per terms of old grant, the appellants decided to resume the said property and, therefore, issued numberice from its Ministry of Defence being Notice No.
Dinshaw S. Anklesaria and others of 94 A Mahatma Gandhi Road, Poona 1 for a sum of Rs.60,000/ subject to the companydition that the intending purchasers executed and registers the admission certificate of their own expense as per their undertaking dated 3.1.68.
No.258 Poona Cantonment.
The respondents, thereafter, filed Civil Application No.3382 of 1992 in Special Civil Application No.1536 of 1973 before the Bombay High Court for possession of the suit premises.
The plot admeasuring 0.90 acres suit premises in question was initially granted to one Nusserwanji Sorabji Anklesaria who erected superstructure, including the Bungalow in question.
608 621 of 1980 titled Union of India Others P.T. Ankleshwar dead by LRs.
The Bombay High Court by its order dated 11th September, 1992 directed the appellants to handover symbolic possession of the suit premises bearing survey number258, Bungalow No.1 A situated at Elphinstone Road, Pune Cantonment, Pune to the respondents.
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th November, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.272 of 2009.
Subsequently, by an Indenture of Sale dated 12th November, 1968 between Manekji Nassurwanji Anklesaria and two others and plaintiffs respondents, Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others it was agreed to sell and purchase the lease hold rights being perpetual grant under the old grant of the Pune Cantonment Board over the suit premises including the bungalow, servant quarters garage, etc.
1536/1973 the defendants appellants filed SLP C No.503/1980 .
Conditions Permission to occupy ground in a Military Cantonment companyfers numberproprietary right it companytinuous the property of the Estate and presumable at the pleasure of Government, but in all practicable case one months numberice of resumption will be given and the value of all buildings which may have been authorized to be erected thereon, as shown in the accompanying plan, as estimated by the Committee companytemplated in General Order Separate of 1856, will be paid to the owner.
4 0.90 acre Description 5 Bungalow No.1A, Elphinstone Road Class 6 B 3 By whom managed 7 D.E.O Landlord 8 Central Government Holder of occupancy rights 9 Maneckhji Nusserwanji Nature of Holders right 10 Old Grant companyditions under GGO of 14 of 6.1.1827 Rent payable Central Govt.
Civil Appeal Nos.
