DAMODHAR TUKARAM MANGALMURTI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a litigation which has had a chequered career in the courts below. The short facts are these. The suit out of which the appeals arise was instituted on 13-1-1941, but the plaint was amended on 4-5-1942. The amended plaint was to the effect that in or about the year 1905 the defendant, the then Provincial Government of the Central Provinces and Berar, Nagpur, "opened up" an area known as the Craddock Town Area which was originally called the Sitabuldi Extension Area or Dhantoli Area. Due to the scarcity of residential accommodation in the city of Nagpur, the then Provincial Government along with some prominent members of the Nagpur Municipal Committee devised a scheme to extend residential accommodation by acquiring agricultural land and making it available for residential purposes. With that object in view, the area in question was acquired and building sites of the average size of about 10,000 sq. ft. each were carved out. These were leased out on a premium of Rs. 350 and an annual rental Rs. 3/8/0 each. The indenture of lease in each case contained a clause to the following effect:

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge of Nagpur, who dealt with the suit in the first instance, took up certain preliminary issues for decision and by a judgment dated 18-4-1942, he disposed of those preliminary issues. One such issue material for our purpose was in these terms : "In case of dispute as to what is fair and equitable rent, has the civil court no right to determine what is fair rent ' On this preliminary issue, he found "that under the terms of Cl. III of the indenture of lease, the defendant was entitled to fix a fair and equitable rent; but the civil court has jurisdiction to enquire whether the rent fixed by the defendant is fair and equitable within the meaning of Cl. III." We need not refer to the other preliminary issues on which the learned Subordinate Judge gave his decision, because those issues no longer survive. On the disposal of the aforesaid preliminary issue, the plaint was amended and some more lessees were added, the 30 years' period of whose leases had also expired; therefore the position was that the plaintiffs were those lessees, the 30 years' period of whose leases had expired and asrespects the renewal of whose leases the defendant had proposed an enhancement of Rs. 21-14-0. The defendant alarmed that it had been very reasonable in fixing the enhanced rent and it further claimed the right of withdrawing the offer of Rs. 21-14-0 and of making a fresh demand at a much higher rent if the lessees did not agree to the terms originally proposed by the defendant. The defendant other denied that the offer of Rs. 7, that is, twice the original rent, made by the lessees was a reasonable and fair enhancement.

(3.) After the disposal of the preliminary issues the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to try the suit on merits and on 2-1-1945, he found on issue No. 4 that Rs. 14 per year would be the fair and equitable enhanced rent for each plot of about 10,000 sq. ft. and he fixed that rent for the next term of 30 years to which the lessees were entitled under Cl. III; he further directed the grant of a rebate of 25 per cent, to those lessees who agreed to a renewal for a term ending in 1948.