It was the case of the respondent that the cellar was number included in the premises let out.
It is somewhat unfortunate that the appeal filed by the res pondent has been admitted to the file and is to be heard on the merits, while the appeal filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed.
Bishan Narain, J. P. Mehta, S. N. Prasad, J. B. Dadachanji, C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
The respondent also preferred an appeal to the High Court.
M. Hazarnavis, K. L. Hathi, Atiqur Rehman, for the res pondent.
552 of 1959 preferred by the appellant to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was by order dated March 30, 1959 dismissed under 0.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 28, 1959 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Application No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Respondent in this appeal is the owner of a build ing used as a cinematograph theatre.
But the learned Judge held that the respondent had number delivered to the appellant possession of the basement and of a part of the building which was intended to be used for a restaurant, and on that account reduced the standard rent payable by the appellant by Rs.
The houses had, it appears, been let out and rent was being received by the owner.
Against the order of the District Court, second appeal No.
It was the case of the appellant that it was so included.
2,06,150/ , and held that standard rent should be fixed on the basis of a return of 7 of the companyt of the building and furniture, and on that footing companyputed the standard rent at Rs.
The District Court agreed with the Trial Court that the companyt of companystruction of the building and companyt of the furniture was Rs.
By a registered deed dated December 23, 1960, the appellant obtained a lease of the theatre at a monthly rental of Rs.
350/per mensem.
1,801/ .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1,150/ per mensem.
220/ Against the order of the Civil Judge, the respondent preferred an appeal under S. 28 1 of the Act to the District Court, Gohilwad, and the appellant preferred cross objections to the order appealed from.
He submitted that the rent stipulated to be paid under the lease was excessive, exorbitant and improper and that the standard rent of the theatre, having regard to its situation and size and the amenities provided therein, companyld number exceed Rs.
The respondent by his written statement submitted that the rent stipulated under the lease was reasonable.
427 of 1964.
On the view that the cellar was number included in the tenancy, the District Court directed that standard rent of the premises in the occupation of the appellant be fixed at Rs.
The appellant applied under s. 11 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 22 of 1951 hereinafter called the Act for an order fixing the standard rent of the theatre.
The Court of First Instance fixed the standard rent of the whole theatre at Rs.
1,030/12/ being the one twelfth of the gross return of 6 on the companyt of companystruction of the theatre and the companyt of furniture installed therein.
1638 of 1959.
Against the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing his appeal, the appellant has appealed to this Court.
1,200/ per mensem.
The District Court further held that possession of the space reserved for a restaurant was delivered to the appellant and since about June 1952 it was in the appellants occupation.
