HIMATRAM HARGOVANDAS VACHHIYAT Vs. DURLABHRAM NARBHERAM GHARIWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Second Appeals have been filed by the The parties to both the appeals are Common. The landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 1962 in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Surat praying for possession of the suit permises (a building with power-looms installed in it) and for rent.

(2.) The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the landlord had not served statutory notice upon the tenant. The landlord appealed to the District Court. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal set aside the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge and passed in favour of the landlord decree for possession and rent.

(3.) It is under these circumstances that the tenant against whom for possession has been passed by the lower Appellate court has filed Second Appeal No. 157 of 1967. The tenant filed Civil Suit No. 252 of 1962 against the landlord for a mandatory injunction directing him to execute the necessary lease-permit in his favour in order to enable him to run the power-looms. A lease-permit is one which is required to be executed by an owner of power-looms in order to obtain from the Excise Department licence to run the industry. Since the landlord did not execute the lease-permit the tenant filed Civil Suit No. 252 of 1962. The learned Trial Judge decreed the tenants suit. The landlord went in appeal to the District Court. The learned District Judge recorded the finding that since he was passing decree for possession against the tenant in the other suit he could not sustain the decree passed against the landlord in this suit. He therefore set aside the decree and dismissed the suit.