DAMODHAR TUKARAM MANGALMURTI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 02-02-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I959 
Lipton Ltd. 
v. 
Their Employees 
· 
S. K. Das]. 
I9~9 
February a. 
180 
SUPitEME .COURT REPOitTS [1959] Supp. 
by the Industrial Tribunal to bring the present emp-
loyees into the new scales of pay will stand subject to 
the necessary modification that instead of January 1, 
1954, the relevant date should be November I, 1955. 
The result,, therefore, is as follows: Appeal No. 715 
of 1957 is dismissed with costs. Appeals Nos. 713 and 
714 off 957 are allowed to the extent indicated above. 
The order for the grant of bonus for 1951 is set aside 
and the new scales of pay will take effect from Novem-
ber 1, 1955, instead of from January 1, 1954. There 
will be no order for costs in these two appeals. 
Appeals Nos. 713 and 714 allowed in part. 
Appeal N_o. 715 dismissed. 
DAMODHAR TUKARAM MANGALMURTI 
AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(SYED JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Lease-Construction-Enha11ce1nent of rent-" Fair and eqitit-
able enhancement as the lessor shall determine" -Lease, whether 
void for uncertainty-Court's power to determine fair and equitable 
rent. 
In r909, for the purpose of residential accommodation, plots 
of land were given on lease by the Government to the appellants 
and others for which a premium of Rs. 350 and an annual rent 
of ll.s. 3-8-0 for each plot had to be paid. Clause III of the deed 
"of lease in each case provided: " And the lessor does further 
covenant that he will at the end of the term of 30 years hereby 
granted and so on from time to time thereafter at the end of 
each successive further term of years as shall be granted at the 
request of the lessee execute to him a renewed lease of the land 
hereby demised for the term of 30 years: Provided that the rent 
of the land hereby demised shall be subject to such fair and 
equitable enhancement as the lessor shall determine on the grant 
of every ~rene\val: Provided also that every such renewed lease 
of the land shall contain such of the covenants, provisions and 
conditions in these presents contained as shall be applicable and 
shall always contain a covenant for further renewal of the lease.' 
(2) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
181 
By the year 1939 the first 30 years' period of some of the leases 
came to an end, and the Government sought to enhance the 
annual rent from Rs. 3-8-0 to Rs. 21-14-0 per plot and also to 
insert some new terms in the renewed deeds of lease. The 
appellants brought a suit inter alia for a declaration that the 
enhancement proposed was not fair and equitable within the 
meaning of Clause III of the deed of lease, that the fair and 
equitable rent should be Rs. 7 per plot and that if the court was 
of the opinion that Rs. 7 was not a fair and equitable rent then 
it should fix such sum as it considered fair and equitable. The 
respondent pleaded that such a suit was incompetent. The ques-
tion was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to enquire 
whether the enhancement of the rent determined by the lessor 
was fair and equitable within the meaning of cl,.. III of the deed 
of lease, and whether, in any case, the lease was void for un-
certainty. 
Held, (per Jafer Imam and S. K. Das, JJ.), that the lease is 
not void for uncertainty; that the expression "fair and equit-
able" in the clause in question means fair and equitable in fact, 
and not what the lessor subjectively considered to be fair and 
equitable ; and, that reading the clause as a whole and giving 
effect to all the words used therein, the meaning is that the 
lessor must first determine what it considers to be fair and 
equitable enhancement, but, if in fact it is not so, it is open to 
the lessee to ask the court to determine what is fair and equit-
able enhancement. Accordingly, the suit was maintainable. 
The rule laid down in Gourlay v. The Duke of Somerset, (1815) 
19 Ves. 429; 23 E.R. 576, held applicable. 
The New Beerbhom Coal Company Limited v. Boloram Mahata 
and others, (1880) L.R. 7 I.A. 107 and Secretary of State for India 
in Council v. Volkart Brothers, (1926) I.LR. 50 Mad. 595, relied 
on. 
Collier v. Mason, (1858) 25 Beav. zoo; 53 E.R. 613 and 
Tekchand Kapurchand v. Mt. Birzabai, A.LR. 1942 Nag. i19, 
distinguished. 
P~r Kapur, J.-The correct interpretation to be put on 
cl. III of the deed of lease is that the lessor was given the 
authority to determine the enhancement of rent but such 
enhancement was to be fair and equitable and what would be 
fair and equitable in any particular case was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.