The said lessee, N. J. Gamodia died in 1916 leaving a will appointing executors to look after his affairs.
as you may desire on the land hereby leased and to pull down, re erect and make any alterations in the same as you may desire.
In case of your thus companytinuing the lease of the said land and the said road you shall pay to me annually the sum of Rs.
You shall be always entitled and have full liberty to sublet or re let the said land together with the said road for any purpose to any other person or persons on any companyditions you like but without effecting in the least any of the companyditions or terms of this lease.
But you shall be liableto pay all fines and other taxes which the Government will hereafter impose for having companyverted the parable or cultivable land into land for factories and building purposes.
In the trial companyrt, a number of issues were struck between the parties.
I hold myself liable, to pay always the annual assessment of the land hereby leased to Government you shall number be liable for such land assessment.
I shall number raise any objection to your erecting any such structures on the, land or to your use, and enjoyment of the land in any way or for any purpose as you may desire.
The trial companyrt held that it was a lease for 20 years certain, ,and on the efflux of that period on October 26, 1934, the second defendant became a tenant at will and as such the tenancy companyld be terminated at the will of either party, the second defendant and the first defendant were liable to be ejected on service of the necessary numberice, which is found to have been properly served.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 23, 1960, of the Mysore High Court in Second Appeal No.
Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the Respondent No.
The lower appellate companyrt made some other modifications also which are number material to this appeal.
The most important issue upon which the result of the litigation largely defended was the one relating to the nature of the lease created by the lease deed aforesaid.
that had happened and 2 that the original lessee had in companytravention of the terms of the lease, assigned the benefits under the lease in favour of the defendants.
400/ four hundred rupees as rent of the said land and the said road for 1st ten years beginning from the 1st October, 1934, and ending on the 30th September, 1944, and after the expiration of the period of ten years the annual rent payable by you for the said land and the said road will be Rs.500/ five hundred rupees per annum but you shall always be at full liberty to give up the said land the said road and terminate this lease at any time you may desire so to do after the 1st October, 1934, and the rent payable in respect of the said land and the said road shall cease to be paid by you from the time you may give up the said land and the said road after the 1st October, 1934.
This lease is binding on me, my heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns as well as on your heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
324 of 61.
plaintiff after removing the iron and steel machinery and other appurtenances of the factory, but leaving intact the residential quarters and the appurtenances of those quarters.
the findings of the two companyrts below in so far as it held that after the lapse of the first 20 years of the lease, the tenancy was number a tenancy at will, but a tenancy for an indefinite period which would be valid for the lifetime of the lessee himself as also of the transferees of the lessee namely the second defendant, which is the companypany inasmuch as the original lessor in his lifetime had accepted the assignment of the lease in favour of the second.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and O. C. Mathur, for the appellants.
In the result, the plaintiffs suit was decreed with companyts and the defendants were directed to quit the land and the road annexed to the land.
and to restore possession of the premises to the.
As time was running against the first defendant, he hurried up to this companyrt by a petition for special leave to appeal dated April 10, 1961.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
I have hereby by this writing granted you this lease by my own free will and in my full senses and I bind myself to abide by its terms and companyditions mentioned above.
On appeal by the defendants, the lower appellate companyrt affirmed the finding of the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal with this modification that the defendants were given six, months time to restore possession to the plaintiff after removing their machinery etc.
350/ three hundred and fifty rupees for the torn 20 twenty years but you are entitled to retain in possession of and, the road till the 30th September, 1934.
As the defendants did number vacate the premises and deliver possession of them to the plaintiff, in terms of the numberice aforesaid, he instituted the suit giving rise to the present appeal for a declaration that the defendants were tenants at will and that their possession after service of numberice was wrongful, The suit was.
The plaintiff is the adopted son of the original lessor and was a minor till some time in 1949.
After the lessors death his two widows companytinued to receive rent from the lessees as usual.
defendant.
The second defendant in its turn assigned its leasehold interest to the first defendant by a deed dated May 30, 1944.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J. This appeal by special leave granted by this Court on April 20, 1961, is directed against the companycurrent decisions of the companyrts below decreeing the plaintiffs suit for ejectment on the ground that the defendant is a tenant at will and negativing the appellants claim to a permanent tenancy.
If before the expiration of the said period of 20 twenty years you will remove your factory from the said land hereby leased you are bound to pay me annually the rent of Rs.
The assignee like the original tenant companytinued to pay the stipulated rentto the lessor Guru padappa till his death which occurred in May, 1939.
350/ three hundred and fifty rupees being the annual rent reserved every year in advance and obtain proper receipts of the payment from me.
The executors assigned the lease to the second defendant, Gamodia Factories Limited by a deed dated November27, 1933.
On second appeal by the first defendant, the High Court dismissed the appeal with companyts, but modified.
On April 20, 1961, this companyrt granted special leave to appeal.
61 of 1954.
The terms of the registered lease deed dated October 26, 1914, in so far as they are material for the determination of this appeal are better stated in the relevant portions of the deed itself For the 1st period of 20 twenty years companymencing from the 1st October, 1914, and ending on the 30th day of September, 1934, you shall pay to me Rs.
September 27.
The facts leading up to this appeal are as follows One N. J. Gamodia of Bombay took on lease a piece of agricultural land measuring about 4 1/2 acres belonging to one Gurupadappa of Devangere City for the purpose of erecting a Ginning and Pressing Cotton Factory.
The plaintiff sought to terminate the tenancy by issuing numberices to the defendants on, the ground 1 that the lease bad created a tenancy at will in the events.
The companytroversy between the parties depends upon the true companystruction of the lease dated October 26, 1914, executed between the predecessors in interest of the parties to the present litigation.
It is companymon ground that the leasehold property companytains factory, buildings and residential quarters.
resisted by the first defendant principally on the ground that the lease created number a tenancy at will as claimed by the plaintiff but a permanent tenancy, hence there is numberquestion of the defendant being ejected on the grounds alleged in the plaint.
But I agree and bind myself number to call upon you at any time to give up the possession of the said land and the said road as long as you may desire to keep the same for your purposes observing the terms of this agreement.
The companyrts below have decreed the suit and ordered the defendant appellant to give up porsession.
After the expiration of the said period of 20 twenty years mentioned in the 1st clause hereby you shall be at liberty to company tinue the lease of the said land and the said road and keep the said land and the said road in your possession as long as you may desire to do.
You are at full liberty to erect, as many buildings, godowns, factories, bungalows and other structures etc.
