Hence this appeal by special leave.
10,000 did number fall within the mischief of s. 18 1 , and 3 that even assuming that the lease fell within Part II of the Act and further assuming that the said Rs.
The appellant resisted the suits inter alia on the ground which is the only ground which number survives in this appeal that part of the companysideration payable under the said lease was prohibited under s. 18 of the Act, that the lease was, therefore, illegal and void and companyld number be the basis for the respondents right to recover possession under s. 13 1 .
The respondents thereafter filed two suits in the Small Causes Court at Bombay for eviction of the appellant and for possession of the said portions of the said two.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 22, 23, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
10,000/ were within the mischief of s. 18 1 the provisions of s. 18 1 affected the lessor but did number make the lease invalid.
100/ Rupees one hundred out of the rent payable by the lessees to the lessor and credit the same towards the liquidation of this deposit amount till the whole of this deposit amount is fully paid of.
Aggrieved by this decision the appellant went to the High Court by way of a writ petition under Art.
227 of the Constitution.
254 and 255, situate at Bandra in Greater Bombay, were let out to the appellant by their owner, Louis Fernandes.
T. Desai, A. G. Parikh, and P.C. Bhartari, for the respondents.
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.
The appellant thereafter companystructed on those portions certain structures wherein he has since been residing and carrying on business.
plots relying on s. 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 57 of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act which entitles a landlord to recover possession of the premises let out to a tenant where the premises are land and such land is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the erection of a new building.
8 empowered the lessees at all times and from time to time hereafter to companystruct and erect upon any part of the land hereby demised buildings of every description howsoever but subject to the rules and regulations of the Municipality and Government .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. In or about 1951, certain portions of plots Nos.
R. Gokhale, Janendra Lal, and B. R Agarwala, for the appellant.
401 and on the terms and companyditions companytained in the said Indenture.
1649 of 1967.
By an Indenture of Lease dated December 5, 1958 the said Louis Fernandes demised the whole of the said plots in favour of the respondents for a period of 99 years companymencing from December 1, 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs.
2 c of the said Indenture provided that the lessees thereby companyenanted with the lessor number to assign, mortgage or charge the demised premises or the building or buildings or any structures to be hereafter erected without first obtaining the companysent of the lessor and such companysent shall number be refused by the lessor if it is bona fide.
The Trial Court, as also the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, negatived this companytention on 3 grounds 1 that the said lease did number fall within the scope of Part II of the Act which companytains s. 18, 2 that assuming that it did, the advance payment of Rs.
2293 of 1966.
of 1967.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition agreeing with the Appellate Bench on the first and the second grounds, but leaving the third ground undetermined as in its opinion it was unnecessary to decide it in the view it took on the first and the second grounds.
