M SURYAPRAKASHA GUPTA Vs. T S MUTHUSWAMI IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant before us. THE appeal arises out of O. S. 135 of 1974 preferred by him on the original side of this court. In the plaint as originally filed two prayers were asked for. viz. , (i)for an injunction restraining defendants 1,3 and 4 from selling or dealing with the suit property to the second defendant or his nominee or to any other person except after giving the plaintiff the first option to purchase the same, and (ii) for a specific performance to direct the defendants 1,3 and 4 to execute and register a pucca lease deed in terms of the agreement to lease dated 21st august, 1970, fixing up rent subject to a maximum increase of Rs. 100 p. m. Though originally the plaintiff prayed for reliefs against defendants 1 and 2, later on an amendment was sought that the prayers might be granted against defendants 3 and 4 as well.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the case of the plaintiff boils down to this. The suit property was leased by the first defendant to the plaintiff. The lease was for establishing a hotel under a lease deed dated 11th March, 1956. Thereafter, the plaintiff obtained sanction from the proper authority for construction of the building and an open-air theatre for making the premises into a first class hotel. On 3rd December, 1961, a lease deed was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. For the purpose of running the restaurant and lodging house, the plaintiff incurred heavy expenditure in this regard amounting to Rs. 1,00,000. He took one Mr. Patel in his business, which was run under the name and style of'states Hotel'. Since there were difficulties in running the business, there was a stipulation in favour of the second defendant on 13th July, 1970 for a period of 37 months with an option to renew for a period of 11 months. The stipulation came to an end by 15th August, 1974.

(3.) THE second defendant trying to support his sub-lease stated that on 11th June, 1974, he agreed to purchase the suit property from defendants 1,3 and 4. THErefore, his rights cannot be affected, by means of the suit. It is incorrect to urge that there was any collusion between the second defendant on the one hand and the other defendants on the other. His agreement for sale was bona fiide. He had no knowledge of the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant with regard to the execution of lease or option to purchase the property. THE suit was liable to be dismissed.