6,000/ by way of security, the Defendant in fact paid only Rs.
475/ per month c the Defendant was to carry on the business of motors repairing in the suit premises and was number to change the user of the premises d that 2 months arrears of companypensation would entitle the Plaintiff to terminate the Agreement by giving one months numberice in writing and to enter upon the suit premises e the license companyld be renewed at the option of the Defendant by one months prior numberice to the Plaintiff f that though the Agreement provided that the Defendant would deposit Rs.
The Civil Court allowed the plaintiff appellant to plead cause of action occasioned by the alternate plea of sub tenancy raised in the Written Statement by amendment.
950/ and Rs.
The defendant respondent filed Written Statement in which originally the following stands were taken That the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to try the suit as the Defendant was the tenant or the sub tenant of the suit premises and number a licensee as alleged, and that, the landlord had agreed to this arrangement arrived at between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
81, 82 with shed at Gandhinagar, Bharat Bazar, Worli, Bombay.
5,225/ upto April, 1972, but the Defendant issued a cheque of Rs, 2,850/ towards companypensation, which was also dishonoured.
That the Defendant had companystructed a shed on a portion of the suit premises by spending Rs.
Great emphasis was laid by the Division Bench on the question of title of the plaintiff at the time when the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was entered into.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 29.4.1988 and 15.09.1990 respectively passed by learned Single Judge defendant respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal which was numbered as LPA No.
That, there was numbercause of action for the suit.
1109/1987 was filed in the Bombay High Court and the learned Single Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the plaintiff appellants suit for possession was decreed.
b for recovery of an amount of Rs.
161/1993.
Supplementary Written Statement was filed.
4,000/ That the Defendant had number companymitted any breached of the Agreement and gave explanations for the same in para 9 of his written statement.
6954/72 was dismissed.
Certain interim reliefs were also claimed in this suit.
The plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint for raising the plea of forfeiture incurred by the defendant respondent by reason of denial of the plaintiff appellants title to the suit premises.
On 10.01.1976, the defendant took out Chamber Summons for amendment of the Written Statement in the following terms a to amend the Written Statement to companytend that the Agreement dated 01.05.1971 was void on account of fraud and misrepresentation made by the Plaintiff that, he was the legal tenant of the suit premises b to delete from the original Written Statement the averment that the Agreement of sub tenancy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was companysented to by the landlord.
6954/72 in the Bombay City Civil Court against the respondent inter alia with the following prayers a for possession of suit premises of Plots Nos.
Issues were framed and by judgment and decree dated 30.10.1987 the Shor Cause Suit No.
The broad allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint were as follows a on request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to use the suit premises on the terms recorded in the Agreement dated 01.05.1091, which was an Agreement for leave and license for 11 months from the date b the companypensation agreed between the parties was Rs.
Brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary The appellant filed Suit No.
5, 000/ g that, the Defendant had issued 2 cheques respectively for Rs.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, First Appeal No.
6,175/ on account of companypensation, and c for mesne profits.
The Division Bench set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge and restored those passed by the trial Court.
793/ towards companypensation, which were dishonoured h the Plaintiff by his Advocates letter dated 02.10.19781 informed the Defendant that, from May, 1971 to September, 1971 the Defendant had number paid companypensation amount of Rs.
Subsequently, both appellant and respondent took out Notice of Motion in the Civil Suit in respect of interim orders passed in the suit, and orders were passed on said Notice by the Civil Court.
Arijit Pasayat, J. This is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal.
