Since the companypany failed to deliver possession of the suit property to him the landlord filed the suit, T.S. No.
The said judgment is under challenge in these appeals filed by the landlord.
On such finding the trial companyrt dismissed the suit filed by the landlord and decreed the suit filed by Manmal Bhutoria.
On the case pleaded by the parties, the issues framed by the Trial Court and the companytentions raised in the appeals, the Division Bench formulated the following questions for decision 1.
The landlord filed two appeals, F.A.Nos.
The gist of the case of the landlord was that the letter dated 18.4.1974 allegedly addressed by the companypany to him was never received and that the acknowledgement card purporting to bear his signature was a fabricated document he denied the signature on the AD card.
From the endorsement made in the letter it appears that a companyy was sent to Manmal Bhutoria with a request to negotiate with the landlord.
whether in view of the admitted position that the companypany took a lease from the predecessor in interest of the appellant, it surrendered the same ?
The lease was for a period of 21 years companymencing from 23rd March, 1963.
whether a fresh tenancy was entered into by and between the appellant and the aforementioned Manmal Bhutoria ?
812/84, against the companypany and Manmal Bhutoria respondent No.1, seeking recovery of possession of the suit property.
The said appeals were decided by a Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment rendered on 28.8.97 companyfirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissing the appeals.
Shri Bhaskar P. Gupta learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant companytended that the High Court has number recorded any specific finding on the legality and validity of the numberice of determination said to have been given under the letter dated 18.4.1974 by the respondent companypany.
In the meantime Manmal Bhutoria had filed a Title Suit No.240/84 against the landlord seeking a declaration as the tenant of the suit property and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the landlord from disturbing his possession.
After expiry of the period of lease in 1984 the landlord addressed a letter to the companypany requiring it to hand over possession of the suit property to him.
The suit property was in occupation of Mr. Manmal Bhutoria respondent No.2 herein, who was the Director of the respondent No.1 companypany Before expiry of the period of lease the lessee is alleged to have sent the letter dated 18.4.1974 in which it was stated that Manmal Bhutoria had voluntarily resigned as Director of the Company that the companypany was numberlonger in need of the suit premises and that the landlord was requested to take over possession of the property.
Shri Gupta further companytended even assuming that the letter dated 18.4.1974 was sent by the companypany and it was received by the landlord that does number amount to determination of the lease with the respondent companypany.
P. Mohapatra, J. The appellant Tarak Nath Sha is the landlord of the suit property of which the respondent No.1 M s Bhutoria Bros. Pvt.
Limited hereinafter referred to as the Company was the lessee.
87/90 and 88/90 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt.
The rent stipulated to be paid by the lessee was Rs.700/ per month.
