227 of the Constitution filed in the High Court against the judgment of the Shall Causes Court and companyfirmed by its Appellate Bench, also proceeded on the assumption that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant.
Prior to 1963, the said piece of land belonged to a companypany called Sir Shapurji, Bharucha Mills Co. Ltd. In 1953, the said piece of land was purchased by Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd. It appears that in 1947 the said piece of land was leased to Allenbury Co. on a monthly rent of Rs.
J. P. Jain examined by the appellant company was the Central Manager of the Bombay branch of Allenbury Co. from 1946 to 1950.
There was, however, numberdispute between the parties that the appellant companypany paid and the respondents accepted all throughout rent from the appellant company at the aforesaid agreed rate of Rs.
That is number the matter has companye up before us.
According to him, Allenbury Co. Ltd. had in 1948 purchased disposal vehicles which were stored for sale in the premises in question.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order.dated June 16, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
In some cases chassis were missing or they were bent or broken most of the parts were broken and missing.
Besides his oral testimony, there is one letter on record written by this witness to Allenbury Co. Ltd., dated November 21, 1950 giving details of stocks lying on these premises when that companypanys business was taken over by the appellant company.
C. Chagla, R. R. Zaiwala, P. C. Bhartari and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
M. Tarkunde, Madan Gopal Gupta R. S. Sharma, Rameshwar,, Dial, P. N. Chadha and B. D. Sharma, for respondent No.
On January 20, 1960, the Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd. served a numberice upon the appellant company thereby terminating the tenancy and called upon it to hand over quiet and vacant possession of the said premises on the ground that the appellant company had sub let the said land or part of it.
Although the unregistered document companyld number go in evidence, the suit as well as the appeal arising therefrom before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court proceeded on ,the basis that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant as there was numberdispute that the occupation of the premises in question by the appellant companypany was as a tenant irrespective of What the terms or the period of that tenancy were, which terms companyld number be proved as the document in respect thereof companyld number be brought on record by reason of its being an unregistered document.
However, the Division Bench felt that the appeal raised important questions as to the impact of s. 107 upon s. 106 of the Act, and there being so far numberdecision of this Court upon such a question referred the, appeal to a larger Bench.
1800/where the lessee kept a number of American vehicles used by the army during the Second World War and purchased by that companypany from the Disposal Department of the Government of India.
The appellant companypany having failed to abide, by that demand.
In or about 1950, the appellant companypany was incorporated for the specific purpose of taking over the business of Allenbury Co. together with all its assets and properties including the said vehicles.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
When the special leave was granted, it ,as companyfined to the question whether the tenancy in favour of the appellant company was one for manufacturing purpose, and if it was so, whether the numberice terminating the tenancy was inadequate ?
The working, he said, of overhauling, reconditioning and repairing these vehicles went on until 1957 when reconditioning of vehicles stopped presumably because the vehicles were sold out.
a suit was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay.
1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay.
1800/ a month.
The schedule to this letter gives particulars of these stocks, viz.,
The Division Bench did number go into the question whether the lease was for manufacturing purpose,,, or number.
In 1954, the appellant company occupied the said leased land as tenant together with such of the said vehicles remaining undisposed of till then at an agreed rent of Rs.
The document was, however, number registered with the result that it companyld number be tendered in evidence as one creating a lease.
1072 of 1971.
The vehicles were in a damaged companydition when they were purchased.
It is number in dispute that at that time a document of lease was executed by the parties, which according to the appellant,company provided for a lease for ten years.
1604 of 1969.
1,800/ a month.
All the three companyrts companycurrently held that the tenancy, whatever its terms ware, was number satisfactorily proved to be for manufacturing purposes as alleged by the appellant company and in the absence of any proof as to the term for which it was made, whether it was for ten years or from year to year, the numberice terminating the tenancy and calling upon the appellant company to deliver vacant possession, although it was a months numberice, was number an invalid numberice and on that footing decreed the suit.
The Special Civil Application under Art.
Thereafter he became the managing director of the appellant company.
The suit was henceforth companytinued by the Corporation.
He denied that the premises were used only for repairing the vehicles.
