The appellants are the legal representatives of Mahadev Pandurang Kambekar, who was the original defendant whereas the respondentShree Krishna Woolen Mills Pvt.
The suit was based essentially on clause 7 of the Lease Deed which, according to the plaintiff, enabled them to elect and exercise their right to purchase the suit land from the defendant on fulfillment of the companyditions set out therein.
So far as the defendants appellants herein Appeal No.169/1999 was companycerned, it arose out of the decree passed against him for specific performance of the companytract, whereas so far as the plaintiffs respondent herein appeal No.199/1999 was companycerned, it arose out of the decree passed against them for possession of the suit land and arrears of rent.
The defendant appellants herein , i.e., lessor felt aggrieved by that part of the order of the Division Bench which resulted in dismissal of his companynterclaim and filed the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
This led the defendant to determine the lease in question by serving a quit numberice dated 19.02.1980 to the plaintiff requesting them to handover the leased premises, which was in their possession, to the defendant.
The appellants defendant and the respondent plaintiff both felt aggrieved by the judgment decree passed by the Single Judge and filed their respective appeals before the Division Bench.
The defendant denied the claim and at the same time also filed his companynter claim against the plaintiff seeking their eviction from the suit land and the arrears of rent.
So far as appeal 169/1999 filed by the appellants defendant was companycerned, the Division Bench set aside the judgment decree and remanded the suit for retrial to the Single Judge on merits afresh in accordance with law.
A dispute arose between the parties.
So far as the order of the Division Bench which resulted in setting aside of the judgment decree of the Single Judge and remanding of the suit for re trial on merits is companycerned, it attained finality as a result of dismissal of SLP filed by the plaintiff in this Court.
The Single Judge also allowed the companynter claim filed by the defendant and accordingly passed the decree for possession of the suit land and arrears of rent for three years against the plaintiff.
The defendant on being served filed the written statement.
Mr. Naphade, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants defendant and Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent plaintiff addressed the Court at length.
In other words, the Division Bench held that so far as companynterclaim filed by the defendant against the plaintiff is companycerned, the Single Judge wrongly entertained it as it had numberjurisdiction on its original jurisdiction to entertain companynterclaim of this nature in the light of the provisions of Section 41 of the Act 1882.
The Single Judge by judgment decree dated 24.12.1998 decreed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of companytract and directed the defendant to execute the companyveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff of the suit land.
However, having heard both the learned companynsel and on perusing the record of the case, we find numbermerit in these appeals.
So far as appeal 199/1999 filed by the respondent plaintiff was companycerned, the Division Bench set aside the judgment decree on the ground that the companynterclaim was number maintainable in view of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 for short called the Act 1882 .
By impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed both the appeals.
Ltd. is the plaintiff in the Civil Suit out of which these appeal arise.
The plaintiff then filed a Civil Suit No.503 of 1980 against the defendant on the original side of the Bombay High Court claiming therein the specific performance of the companytract lease deed in relation to the suit land.
The plaintiff claims to be the lessee of the suit land whereas the defendant claims to be the owner lessor of the suit land on the terms set out in the indenture of the lease deed dated 20.06.1958 executed between the parties.
The dispute between the parties relates to the land bearing survey Nos.58 and 60 renumbered as CTS 741,741/1 to 741/7 situated at Nahur Bhandup in Bombay suburban District hereinafter referred to as the suit land .
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 19.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.169 of 1999 in Suit No.503 of 1980 and in Appeal No.199 of 1999 in Suit No.503 of 1980 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court Signature Not Verified allowed both the appeals filed by the appellants Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.01.31 165806 IST Reason herein defendant and the respondent plaintiff herein respectively.
