Against this decision the defendants appealed and a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, reversed the decision of the trial Judge and dismissed the suit with companyts.
79 of 1952, arising out of the judgment and decree dated June 27, 1952, of the said High Court exercising its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Suit No.
50 per month.
On July 27, 1948, the respondents, replied asserting that the Act did apply to it.
The lease was for twenty one years.
The appellants, accordingly, filed the present suit in the High Court on September 1, 1948.
On the termination of the lease either at the end of twenty one years or earlier, the lessees were to surrender and yield up the demised premises including the building with its fixtures and appurtenances to the lessors without any companypensation for the same.
The companyt of companystruction was to be number less than Rs.
There were certain restrictive companyenants in the lease.
The companystruction had to be to the satisfaction of the lessors engineers.
10,000.
As to how they companylect the same was their companycern.
The first respondent is directed to render an account of the rents received by him from the tenants of the building from 23 5 48 and to pay to the appellants the amount found due, after accounting, with interest at 6 per annum from 23 5 48 until payment.After the decree of the trial companyrt, it is only the first three defendants who preferred an appeal to the High Court.
The suit was companytested only by the first three defendants who appear to be brothers and who claim to have companytinued in possession of the building after the crucial date, i. e., May 22, 1948.
He refused to grant the prayer that the defendants be directed to obtain letters of attornment from the tenants of the building in favour of the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. The appellants, as trustees, of the Mankeshwar Temple Trust had filed suit No.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 29, 1952, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
April 28.
The period of the lease under Exbt.
The area of land was about 213.66 square yards and the rent reserved was Rs.
After the suit, defendant No.
He further directed the first defendant to account for the rents recovered by him from and after May 23, 1948, till the date of the decree.
On July 23, 1948, the appellants gave the respondents numberice to quit the building only as in their opinion the Act did number apply to it.
4 being on the record.
The companyrespondence disclosed in the suit, which passed between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, showed that it was only he who was in effective companytrol of the building.
There seems, therefore, to be numbervalid objection in law to granting the relief sought by the appellants.
Under the terms of the lease the lessee had to companystruct within six months from the date of the lease a double storeyed building companysisting of shops on the ground floor and residential rooms on the upper floor.
There is numberclaim against the other defendants for accounts in respect of the usufruct of the property.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
All that they companyld get was the rent under the lease from the respondents.
12,000 in the joint names of the lessors and the lessees with an insurance firm approved by the lessors.
K. Jha, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents.
A, belongs to the Mankeshwar Temple Trust and the aid trust is entitled to recover all the rents and profits from the, same and the respondents have numberright, title and interest therein since the expiration of the said lease.
The appellants had obtained leave of the High Court under 0.
5 has remained ex parte throughout.
On May 23, 1927, Krishnarao Ganpatrao and Shamrao Ganpatrao, as trustees of the Mankeshwar Temple, executed a registered lease, Exbt.
If the building was damaged or destroyed it had to be repaired or restored by the use of the insurance money received from the insurance companypany.
He also passed an order of injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 5, their agents and servants, from interfering with the exercise of the right of the appellants in obtaining possession of the building or otherwise effectuating their possession companysistently with the provisions of law.
The appellants are entitled to a declaration that the building companystructed on the land demised under the lease, Ext.
It is they who claimed protection under the Act.
On May 19, 1948, the respondents replied that they.
The appellants further prayed that the defendants may be ordered and decreed to obtain a letter of attornment from the tenants of the said property attorning to the appellants, that the first defendant may be ordered to render accounts of the rents received by him from the tenants of the said property from May 23, 1948, and that pending the hearing of the suit a Receiver may be appointed of the property in suit.
were entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and that the appellants were number to interfere with their possession.
2325 of 1948.
On May 14, 1948, shortly before the lease was to expire, the appellants who were then the trustees of the temple gave numberice to the respondents to deliver possession of the demised premises and the building on the expiry of the lease, that is to say, on May 22, 1948.
The building had to be insured for at least Rs.
Defendants 4 and 5, who were purported to be sued as representatives of one of the joint lessees, do number appear to have taken any interest in the building.
The learned Judge who heard the suit decreed it in part in favour of the appellants.
Though the plaintiffs impleaded 5 persons as defendants in the suit, the plaintiffs claimed a decree against the first defendant only in respect of the rents received by him from the tenants in the building in question.
11, r. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code reserving to them liberty to file a separate suit with respect to the land on which the building was situated.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and Naunit Lal, for the appellants.
192 of 1954.
A, in favour of Moreshwar Kasinath and Radhabal, wife of Ramkrishna Bhai Thakore, whereby they demised a parcel of land specified in the Schedule to the document.
