G D GANDHI Vs. SRI JYOTI BHUSAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals from an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Banares, rejecting an application for the issue of an injunction but at the same time directing the defendants to furnish security and to submit accounts. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows :

(2.) THE dispute in the case relates to a cinema hall called the "prahlad Ka Theatre Hall" at banares, hereinafter referred to as the Hall. It was owned by a joint Hindu family consisting of seth Sagarmal and his sons, Sri Nand Kishore and Sri Bhagwati Prasad. These three persons wens arrayed as defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the court below. They carry on joint Hindu family business in the name and style of Messrs. Sagarmal Brij Mohan Das. This firm was also impleaded as defendant 1. The plaintiff, Sri Joti Bhushan Gupta, was a tenant of the Hall for the purpose of carrying on business, of showing films, etc.

(3.) IN 1949, there was a litigation between the plaintiff and the proprietors of the Hall, namely, defendants 1 to 4 hereafter referred to as proprietors. Two suite were filed -- one was filed by Sri joti Bhushan Gupta for fixation of rent and the other was filed by the proprietors for arrears of rent and for electment of Joti Bhushan Gupta from the Hall. On 4-4-1950 the suits were compromised and Joti Bhushan Gupta was allowed by the terms of the compromise to remain in possession of the Hall as a tenant for three years certain with power of renewal of the lease for another period of two years. There was also a clauses that if the proprietors bona fide sold the hall to a third person. Joti Bhushan Gupta would vacate the premises on receiving three months' notice Joti Bhushan Gupta continued in possession of the Hall New rules for running cinema business, however, same into force requiring certain specific alterations and renovations in the hall. As the proprietors did not make the required alterations and renovations the parties came to an agreement that, if the proprietors sold the premises within one month, the tenancy of the plaintiff would be deemed to have ceased with effect from 1-2-1952, but that if no sale was made within the stipulated period, the agreement would be deemed to be null and void and the tenancy would be deemed to be continuing, as if it had never come to an end. This agreement was recorded in two documents both dated 13-3-1952. in one of the documents it was stated that the hall was being vacated and its possession was handed over to the proprietors on 1-2-1952 and that no rent would be accruing after that date. In the other document, which was in the form of a letter from the proprietors to Joti Bhushan Gupta, it was stated that the first document had been signed with a view to help the proprietors in selling the cinema building and that it would become absolute only if the proprietors were successful in selling it within one month of the agreement. It was further stated that, in the absence of such sale, the proprietors agreed that the tenancy of the plaintiff would continue without a break on the same terms and conditions as before, and that the rent would not be charged for the period for which the cinema remained closed after 1-2-1952. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the proprietors did not intend to sell the premises at all but got the two documents from him under a pretext in order to run the Hall as a cinema in their own name and for their own benefit, and that on learning of the true intention of the proprietors, the plaintiff applied to the District Magistrate on 14-8-1952 for revival of the licence to run the cinema in his name. On 16-8-1952 an application was made by Bhag-wati Prasad, defendant 3 one of the proprietors, to the District Magistrate for the licence to be issued in his name. Before any licence could be issued the plaintiff filed the suit which has given rise to the present appeals, impleading the proprietors as defendants 1 to 4 in the suit, praying that by means of a permanent injunction the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the Theatre hall and from executing any document for the transfer of the Hall to some other person, or in the alternative if the plaintiff be not deemed to be in possession of the Hall, to pass a decree for possession in his favour. On the same date he made an application for the issue of an injunction prohibiting the defendants from making any sale to a third person and also prohibiting them from obtaining a licence for running the cinema. It was alleged in the plaint, that as the sale was not made by the defendants within the period of one month stipulated in the agreement of 13-3-1952, the agreement had become null and void and the plaintiff remained in possession as a tenant in the eye of law.