LexJAMNADAS DHARAMDAS versus DR. J. JOSEPH FERREIRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
y
1015
JAMNADAS DHARAMDAS
A
v.
DR. J. JOSEPH FERREIRA AND ANR.
May 7, 1980
[A. C. GUPTA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.]
B
Bon1bay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates, Control
Act, 1947,
Section 12(3){b) and Section 28, scope of-Jurisdiction of the Court of Small
Causes, Bombay under section 28-Decree for possfflsion of vacant land lvoultl
refer only to taking over effective possession of the land by. decree holder with
the superstructure if any.
By a lease dated 14th December 1948, the respondent plaintiff gave to the
appellant defendant on leaee two plots Nos. 12 and 13 situated at Sitaladevi
Temple Road, Mahim for a period of 15 years commencing from 1st Decem~
ber 1948 at the yearly rent of Rs. 10,200/· payable in equal quarterly · instal·
ments of Rs. 2,550/. in advance. The lease deed provided that the appellant
was at liberty to erect building and structures on the two plots of land. The
appellant agreed to pay and discharge all taxes and outgoings imposed on the
above two plots a-s also on the buildings to be erected by the defendant. On
the exprration of the term of the lease, the appellant agreed to deliver back the
possession of two plots to the respondent 'free of all buildings, erections and
structures and levelled and put in gocx:i order and condition to the sati$faction
of the respondent'. Clause IV of the lease provided for determina-tion and
forfeiture of the lease in the event of the rents having been allo\ved to be in
arrears for more than 30 days or upon breach of conditions of the lease. The
forfeiture clause also provided that upon forfeiture the respondent would
be
entitled to re-enter upon not only the two plots of land but also the structures
standing thereon.
The appellant constructed on plot No. 12 a three-storied building consisting
of about 72 flats, shops with carpet area of 13,000 square feet and the cost of
the building with superstructures in 1949 was about Rs. 6,60,000/-. Since the
appellant defaulted not only in payment of rent but also in payment of dues in
respect of lands and buildings which he erected, the respondent filed a suit in
1951 for ejectment. The appellant filed an application for the fixation of standard
rent and the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 435/- per month from September 1,
1950. A compromise was entered into between the parties in the suit on 5th
March. 1954, by which they agreed on a rent of Rs. 435/· per month from
September 1950 to February 1954. An appeal a-gainst the fixation of standard
rent of Rs. 435/· per month was disposed of on 28th June, 1955 whereby standard
rent was refixed at Rs. 620/· p.m. from !st September 1950.
The appellant again defaulted in payment of rent and taxes. The arrears
of rent amounted to Rs. 11.472.30 and taxes to the extent of Rs. 1.12,053.60
c
D
F
G
for the period ending 30th September 1960. The respondent by a notice deter-
mined and forfeited the lease and called upon the appeUant to deliver possession
H
of the lands alongwith structures thereupon. The notice also specified that the
notice was not only a notice of forfeiture, but also notice under section 12 of
the Bomb~y Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. On !st
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J 980] 3 S.C.R.
A
Decemb.er 1961, as the appellant failed ·to pay the arrears of rent and the taxes,
the respondeut filed the. suit for ejectment and prayed for a decree for ejectlnent
a.gainst the appellant in respect of two plots of land Nos. 12 and 13 and also the
buildingS i!Dd structures standing thereon, and claimed
arr~ars of rent of
H.s. 11,472.50 and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 620/- p.1n. 'fhe. appellant in
order to g<t the benefit of section 12 ( 3 )( b) of the Rent Control Act,
194 7,
applied fvr time for' making depos.it of arrears. of rent. 'fhe appellant could
B
not make the payment within the extended time allowed, but after the issues
were framed and the suit was taken up for trial, he deposited the arrears of rent
and cost in the Cour~ after the -Court made an endorsement "accept without pre-
judice''.
Sgbsequently, on 11th November, 1964 the Trial
Court passed
a
deqree for eJectment in respect of plots and the buildings in favour of the
respondent. A decree was granted regarding arrears of rent and
for
mesfle
profilB.
c
Both the appellant and the respondent preferred appeals and the Bench of
two Judges of the Court of Small Causes by a common judExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.