H VRAJAN Vs. C NGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of his suit i.e., Original Suit No. 52 of 1950-51 in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore. The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment of the trial Court. There is no need to repeat the same. We shall briefly state the facts relevant for the decision of the points at controversy in this Court.

(2.) The first defendant is the owner of the "Moviland Theatre" (suit property). He leased out the same on 29-12-1941 as per Exhibit L (which is also marked as Exhibit IX). For the purpose of this case we may take it that the second defendant in this suit is the lessee thereunder. The lease was for a period of five years and in the ordinary course, it was to expire at the end of February 1947. As per Exhibit IV dated 2-5-1946, the first defendant demanded possession of the leased property on the termination of the lease. But the second defendant as per Exhibit V sought a renewal of the lease, as per Clause 14 in Exhibit L. After exchange of letters Exhibits IV and V, the first defendant leased the "Moviland Theatre" to the plaintiff as per Exhibit D dated 2-9-1946. The lease was to commence on the termination of the then existing lease in favour of the second defendant. As per Clause 2 of Exhibit D. the rent for the suit property

(3.) The second defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit for possession on various grounds, out of which only three Were pressed before us. They are: (i) that the lease Exhibit L in his favour has been duly renewed and as such he was entitled to be in possession during the renewed period; (ii) that he has become a statutory tenant of the suit property as per the terms of the Mysore House Rent Control Orders and Acts. Consequently he cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions contained therein; (iii) the compromise entered into by him and the first defendant is a bona fide compromise of a doubtful claim and as such the same is binding on the plaintiff.