This is the cinema house which came to be known as the Gaiety Theatre.
All these leases were then granted by the Receivers under the orders of the Court.
And it was authenticated by the Chief Secretary to Government.
The term of the lease in favour of the second respondent would, therefore, have ended on May 1, 1947 but before that date Madras Buildings Lease Rent Control Act 1946 Madras XV of 1946 came into force under which tenants in possession who companytinued in occupation of residential or number residential buildings companyld number be evicted therefrom except by proceedings taken under the Act before designated officers and on stated grounds which did number include the mere expiry of the term.
Sachin Chaudhuri, N. A. Palkhiwala, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
Thereupon the present appellant P. J. Irani as representing the estate of his father who had by then died, filed a suit on the original side of the Madras High Court C. S. 479 of 1947 for evicting the second respondent from the property.
K. Gopalakrishnamachar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent No.
This was sometime in 1940.
On January 4, 1937, the second respondent purchased from Mrs. Madan the lease hold right, including the superstructure of a cinema house which had by that time been companystructed on the land by one of the previous lessees.
This was done as he had the option under his lease.
On May 1, 1947, the appellants mother, his father having died in the meantime, deposited with the Receivers a further sum of Rs.
The term of the lease was due to expire on May 30, 1942.
A provision for exemption being granted from the operation of the Act by the State Govern ment was companytained in s. 13 of the Act Madras Buildings Lease Rent Control Act.,
671 of 1957.
Thereupon he moved the Government and the Government after giving the second respondent a hearing, and fully companysidering the matter, passed the order of June 4, 1952.
The three appeals were heard together and this companymon point was first decided by a judgment pronounced on October 23, 1953.
This lease gave Mrs. Madan the first option of refusal in case the lessor desired to let out the land on lease after its expiry.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer and Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No.
10,000 in respect of the leases to be granted to him and this he duly deposited.
14 of the Constitution.
In the affidavit in support of the petition, the second respondent further averred that in the order impugned numberjustification has been shown for depriving the petitioner of the beneficial provisions of the Rent Control Act.
The High Court passed orders that that land should also be let out on a long term lease.
4, 1951, rejected this application for exemption on the ground that the matter was then sub judice.
This is the result of decisions rendered in certain proceedings between the parties to which we shall immediately refer.
Apparently, the second respondent surrendered the remaining term of his lease which was to have expired on May 30, 1942.
1 Blackers Road with a view to companystruct a cinema theatre whereon.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 5, 1954, of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
The proposals were put up by the Receivers to the High Court for its companysideration.
The second respondent was number prepared to take a fresh lease for twenty one years but he suggested that a lease for another seven years might be given to him on his agreeing to vacate the premises after the expiry of those seven years without claiming any extension or option.
Irani, the, reversionary lessee called upon the second respondent to surrender possession in accordance with the companyditions of his lease, but the latter declined to do so relying upon the Act and the protection which it companyferred upon him.
The proposals from the appellants father and the second respondent were then companysidered by the High Court and by companysent of parties orders were passed by it on March 21, 1940, and the 2nd and 3rd of May, 1940.
One Mrs. Madan purchased the lease hold interest from the Official Assignee and she later obtained a fresh lease from the representatives of Sir Hajee Ismail Sait for a period of seven years from June 1935, expiring on May 30, 1942.
The appellant filed an appeal against this judgment Original Side Appeal 37 of 1948 which was also dismissed on July 29,1951, on the same finding.
In this view the grounds upon which exemption was granted in each of the three cases before them were separately companysidered and in the appeal by the second respondent the learned Judges, after examining the reasons disclosed by the Government as to why they granted exemption in the particular case, held that those reasons were number germane to the purpose for which the,power of exemption had been vested in them and quashed the order of exemption.
By these orders the Receivers were directed to grant a lease of the land adjoining the Gaiety Theatre premises to the appellants father for twenty one years companymencing from May 1, 1940, with option for ten more years.
April 21.
The High Court thereupon called upon the second respondent to elect whether he would take a fresh lease of the Gaiety Theatre premises for a period of twenty one years after the expiry of his lease then current.
15 of the Letters Patent.
The Judgment of Sinha, C. J., Ayyangar and Mudholkar, JJ.
14 of the Constitution but that individual orders granting the exemption might be examined to find out whether such orders were within the policy and purpose of the Act or whether they were discriminatory and therefore offended Art.
The orders required the appellants father to deposit a security of Rs.
The High Court had called upon the Government to state the reasons.
The appellants father did number like a companypeting showhouse in close proximity to his own, and therefore, he suggested to the Receivers that he should be given the lease of the Gaiety Theatre premises also after the expiry of the second respondents lease on May 30, 1942, at the same rent which was being paid by the second respondent and for a term ending with his proposed lease in respect of the adjoining premises.
The Receivers then moved the Court for directions regarding the grant of the lease.
He was, however, willing to have the lease companytinued for a period of 7 years from the 1st of May 1940, i.e., for 5 years beyond the term of his then existing lease.
On October 1, 1946, the Act came into force and in view of its provisions, the second respondent companyld number be evicted from the Gaiety Theatre premises even after the expiry of his lease.
The reasons were as follows 1 .
He took various proceedings to eject the second respondent from the Gaiety Theatre premises but was unsuccessful.
9,000 as rent in advance, as required by the terms of the lease.
was delivered by Sarkar, J. AYYANGAR, J. This is an appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras on a certificate under Arts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
These orders further directed the Receivers to grant a lease of the Gaiety Theatre premises to the second respondent for a period of seven years from the same date without any option, and to grant a lease of these premises to the appellants father for a period of thirteen years and eleven months and a half companymencing from the expiry of the seven years for which a lease of them was going to be granted to the second respondent.
28 of 1953.
Relying on the aforesaid orders and leases and also on the second respondents agreement to vacate the Gaiety Theatre premises on the expiry of his lease, the appellants father companystructed a showhouse on the land adjoining the Gaiety Theatre premises which came to be known as the Casino Theatre.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are briefly as follows The dispute relates to promises No.
Irani feeling aggrieved by the decision of the High Court applied to and obtained a certificate under Arts.
Thereafter the appellant ,seems to have succeeded to the estate of his father.
It is number companymon ground that this enactment companyered the second respondents possession of the premises number in dispute and that numberwithstanding the termination of the term he was statutorily entitled to companytinue in possession even after the expiry of the lease on May 1, 1947.
After the dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench the appellant Irani moved the Government afresh by a further petition filed in or about December, 1951, praying for the same relief.
132 and 133 1 of the Constitution, and raises for companysideration the companystitutionality of s. 13 of the Madras Buildings Lease Rent Control Act, 1949 and the legality of an order of the State Government passed thereunder.
In the early months of 1940, one J. H. Irani, the father of P. J. Irani the appellant before us had negotiated with the Recei vers for a lease of a property adjacent to No.
There was litigation between the heirs of Sir Haji Ismail Sait, pending on the original side of High Court of Madras, and by interim orders passed in two suits C. S. Nos.
280 and 286 of 1939 , the High Court appointed two advocates as Joint Receivers to administer the property in suit.
While one T. S. PL.
In or about the year 1914 one Venkayya obtained a lease of this property from Sir Haji Ismail Sait and companystructed a cinema theatre thereon which he ran under the name of the Gaiety Theatre.
1, Blackers Road, Mount Road, Madras a property which was originally owned by one Sir Haji Ismail Sait.
was delivered by Ayyangar, J. The Judgment of K. Das and Sarkar, JJ.,
The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated March 12, 1953, on the ground that the companystitutional validity of s. 13 of the Act had already been upheld by a Division Bench of the Court in another case.
Mrs. Madan was thus the owner of the superstructure and the lessee of the site, with a term which would expire in or about May 1942.
1 Blackers Road, Mount Road, Madras Gaiety Theatre from all the provisions of the said Act.
Thereafter the Official Assignee sold the super structure of the theatre to one Mrs. Madan to whom he also assigned the unexpired portion of the lease.
Mrs. Madan, subsequently, obtained a further lease of the property from the representatives of Sir Haji Ismail Saits estate for a further period of 7 years from June 1935.
The Government, by their order dated June 4, 1952, granted the exemption sought and the relevant numberification which appeared in the Fort St. George Gazette ran In exercise of the powers companyferred by section 13 of the Madras Buildings Lease Rent Control Act 1949 Madras Act XXV of 1949 His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby exempts the building No.
Even while the appeal was still pending before the High Court, Irani applied to the Government of Madras for exemption of the premises from the operation of the Act.
Irani offered to the Receivers to take a lease also of the property number in dispute and on which the Gaiety theatre stood, also till April May 1961.
In those suits, orders had been passed appointing Receivers of that estate and the estate was thereafter being administered by the High Court.
The Advocate General appearing for the Government, the first respondent in this appeal, filed a memorandum setting out these reasons.
That lease was for a period of 21 years and would have expired in or about April May 1961.
The father of the appellant offered to take a lease of that land at a rent of Rs.
Taking advantage of the Act, the second respondent refused to vacate the premises after the expiry of his lease on April 30, 1947, which he had expressly agreed to do.
Venkayya was adjudicated an insolvent and the Official Assignee of Madras in whom his estate, including the leasehold interest in the suit site vested, obtained a further lease of the property from the representatives of Sir Haji Ismail Sait who had by then died, for a period of 9 years from March 1926.
Both the State of Madras whose order was impugned as well as the appellant Irani for whose benefit the order was passed were made respondents to this writ petition.
The second respondent thereafter took the matter in appeal under cl.
The Court thereupon passed an order on May 2, 1940 reading The lessee of the Gaiety Theatre Chidambaram Chetty will be given a lease of seven years from this date.
450 per month for a period of twenty one years with an option of renewal for another ten years, for the purpose of companystructing a show house on it.
The second respondent, whose term of lease would have expired in 1942, was offered by the Court the option of taking a lease for 21 years from the 1st of May 1940 but he expressed his unwillingness to take a lease for such a long term.
226 of the Constitution challenging the legality and propriety of this order of exemption on the principal ground that the provision companytained in s. 13 of the Act enabling the Government to exempt particular buildings from the operation of the Act, vested in them an unguided and arbitrary discretion which was unconstitutional as violative of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Art.
At that time the lease of the adjoining Gaiety Theatre bad only about two more years to run.
The second respondent thereupon made a petition to the High Court under Art.
The Government, however, by their order dated June.
By the date of this application Madras Act XV of 1946 had been repealed and its provisions substantially re enacted in the Madras Buildings Lease Rent Control Act, 1949, but as the provisions of the two enactments on the points which arise for decision in this appeal are identical it is sufficient if reference is made to those of the later Act.
