KANJI MANJI versus THE TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 27-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

3 $.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
461 
the order of 'tSsessment under s. 34 he had been 
saddled with a liability to the extent of his 3/16th 
share •in the firm, though this has been partially off-
set by the credit given to him, obviously wrongly, 
of relief under s. 18(5) of the tax deemed to have 
been paid by the company on that incomes. 
We therefore consider that the appeals must 
fail. 
They are accordingly dismissed but in the 
circumstances of this case there will be no order as 
to costs. 
Appeals dismissed. 
KANJI MANJI 
v. 
THE TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY 
(S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
Ejectment-Suit by Government or local Authority against 
assignees of leased land and building-Applicability of Rent 
Act-Jurisdiction of City Civil Court-Joint tenancy-Notice 
on one tenant, if sufficient-Suit if bad for non-joinder of legal 
representative of the deceased joint tenant-Assignee of tenancy 
if bound by the terms of the original lease-Where eviction of 
sub-tenant not possib/,e under statute, whether a ground to defeat 
the rights of the Local Authorities-Bombay Rents. 
Hotel and 
Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bom. 57 of 1947), 
88. 4, 5( 8), 15. 
In 1924, the Trustees of Port of Bombay granted a lease 
of land for ten years to a partnership firm, with the covenant 
that the lessee would, at their own expense construct upon the 
said land, certain buildings to the specifications of the trustees. 
It was provided inter alia that the lessee would be at liberty 
to remove the buildings, erected by them, within three 
months after the expiration of the term. It is not clear what 
happened actually after the expiration of the term of ten 
years. 
In 1942, the Trustees granted to M/s. D and 0 their 
respective heirs, 
executors, 
administrators and assigns, a 
monthly tenancy of the land together with the buildings 
standing thereon. It was agreed with them that on the 
1962 
The Income T 
Officer 
v. 
Aruind N. Mofatlal 
Ayyangar J. 
19&2 
F~bruary 27. 
1962 
Kanji Monj& 
v. 
TA, Tf'usluJ oj th1 
Pt11t of Bornbo;1 
462 SDPRE}fE COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
determination of the tenancy, they , .. ·ould have to remove 
such UuiJdings as "'ere standing upon the demised land. 
In 
1947 Mis. D and 0 
assigned rheir right> in the lease to one 
R and the appellant K , ... ·hich \.\'as accepted hy tht: trustees. 
After due notice in J 9'i6, the Trustees filed a suit for eject-
rnent against Rand K, in tl1c Bombay (;ity Civil Court. R 
had died before the filing of the suit and the plaint was 
amended by striking out the name of R. The appellant as 
defendant took a number of pleas; (a) notice was invalid as 
it had been served only upon one of the lessees, (b) suit was 
bad for non-joinder of the heirs and the legal representatives 
of R, (c) Jurisdiction of City Civil Court was challenged as the 
suit was governed by Rent Act, (d) and lastly, that the 
contrar.t to deliver vacant possession 
\vas 
in1possible of 
pcrformanrc and the said irnpos:siliility rendered the clairn of 
the plaintiffs incompetent. 
field, that once it i!' held that the tenancy \vasjoint a 
notice to one of thr joint tenants \vas sufficient, and the suit 
for the .same reason was good. 
Held, further, that the suit as laid for vacant possession 
of the site and in tlie City Civil Court '"'as co1npetant. 
Held, that in view of the definition "premises" in s.5(8) · 
and the events leading to the arncndment of s. 4, the amend-
ment was enacted to cut down by a definition the operation 
the word~ "any prendses belonging to the Government or a 
local authority" by excluding buildings which \\·ere occupied 
ny sub-tenants even though tile building belonged to the 
Government or continued to belong to it and any action of 
the Government or local authority in respect of the land falls 
to be governed ·by >Ub·s. (I) and not sub-s (4) (a) of the 
Rent-control Act. 
Held, 
therefore, if tl1c 
Government 
or a local 
authority 
v.:anL<; to evict a person 
from the land, 
the 
provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses 
Rates (Control) Act, 1947, do not come in the way. 
For the 
same reason, the suit for ejectment docs not have to be filed in 
the court of s111all causes, as required l>y a !lent Control 1\ct 
but in the City Civil Co"rt. 
If the origipa) lessees took on lease not· only the land 
but also the building, it is not open to their assignees to 
clain1 that the ownership of the Government extended on

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.