S K RAI Vs. B TEA CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for revisionist-tenant and Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for respondent-landlord.

(2.) Present SCC revision is filed by the tenant challenging the judgment and order dated 31.08.1985 whereby the SCC Suit No.2 of 1979 for his ejectment and for recovery of mesne profits, amounting to Rs. 25078.88 and pendalite and for future mesne profits @ Rs.1150/- per month till actual eviction, is decreed with cost.

(3.) Facts of the case are that a Cinema Hall, known as Sunder Talkies, Unnao, was owned by the respondent. The said property was leased to the revisionist on 26.10.1964 on a monthly rent of Rs.1150/-. The tenancy was to commence from the date when the lessee secures the license for exhibition of films and running cinema. An agreement was signed between the parties, however, the same could not be properly stamped and registered. The possession of the property was handed over to the lessee without there being any formal registered agreement executed and even later formalities were not completed. The revisionist secured license for running the cinema hall on 14.04.1965 and the tenancy also commenced from the said date. On 07.06.1968, the respondent issued notice requiring the revisionist to vacate the premises and handover the physical possession of the building along with the furniture and fixtures on expiry of 30 days of the receipt of notice. The said notice was served upon the revisionist on 10.06.1968. On 10.07.1968, the respondent got the possession of the property. However, revisionist strongly objected to the said eviction on the ground that his manager in collusion with the respondent illegally handed over the possession. It appears that, on a representation dated 17.07.1968 of the revisionist, the District Magistrate, Unnao intervened in the matter by his order of the same date i.e. 17.07.1968 and restored possession to the revisionist. The said order of District Magistrate provided that the cinema license is to expire on 31.07.1968 and on its' expiry, the revisionist would handover the possession of the property back to the respondent. Under the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, the possession of the property was restored on 20.07.1968 and thereafter, despite writ petitions being filed, the said possession was never returned by revisionist and hence, the suit.