AMAR LIFESPACES LLP Vs. BAKUL MAGANLAL VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal impugns an order dated 19 th December, 2022 by which the Learned Single Judge has dismissed Interim Application (L) No.30888 of 2022 ("the said Interim Application"). The said Interim Application has been taken out by the Appellants who are Defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the captioned Suit. The Appellants have in the said Interim Application sought the following reliefs viz.

(2.) Before dealing the rival contentions, it is essential to set out the relevant facts so as to give a context to the rival contentions.

(3.) Mr. Ardeshir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that he would first deal with the reasons recorded by the Learned Single Judge for not granting prayer clause "e" and then with the other prayers which were also not granted. He submitted that the Learned Judge's reasoning for rejecting prayer clause "e" i.e. " that the plaintiffs claim antecedent leasehold rights in the suit property " was a legally untenable one. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Kanthimathi and Another Vs. Beatrice Xavier (Mrs),(2000) 9 SCC 339. he submitted that once an Agreement for Sale had been entered into by a lessee with the lessor, the lease hold rights of the lessees would come to an end. He submitted that the parties would then be bound by the said Agreement that was entered into and their corresponding rights and obligations would flow from the said Agreement. He submitted that this position would exist even if the Agreement was subsequently terminated. Basis this, he submitted that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 having entered into the said Agreement could not claim any rights in the said property as lessees and therefore could not create any further tenancies in respect of the suit property since their rights as lessees had come to an end on execution of the said Agreement. He therefore submitted that the Learned Single Judge had committed an error of law in concluding that the Plaintiff would continue to have antecedent leasehold rights in the suit property even after the Agreement for Sale had been entered into. Mr. Ardeshir however fairly submitted that this was not a ground raised before the Learned Single Judge at the time of the hearing of the said Interim Application, but was being canvased now for the first time.