LAWS(BOM)-2007-7-71

MAHADEV PANDURANG KAMBEKAR Vs. SHREE KRISHNA WOOLLEN MILLS

Decided On July 19, 2007
CHHAYA ARJUN MUKADAM Appellant
V/S
KRISHNA WOOLLEN MILLS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Appeals challenge the same judgment of the learned single Judge of this court passed in Suit No.503 of 1980. That suit was filed by Shree Krishna Woollen Mills, where Mr.Mahadev Pandurang Kambekar was joined as a Defendant. ( For the sake of convenience, in this judgment the parties are referred as Plaintiff and Defendant).

(2.) The Plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of specific performance of the contract, where as in the same suit the Defendant filed a counter-claim seeking a decree of possession. The learned single Judge has decreed the claim of the Plaintiff and has passed a decree of specific performance in favour of the Plaintiff and has also allowed the counter claim and has passed a decree of possession in favour of the Defendant. Therefore, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have challenged the judgment and decrees passed by the learned single Judge by filing these two Appeals.

(3.) Admittedly, the Defendant is the owner of the land being survey No.58 and survey No.60 at Nahur-Bhandup in Bombay Suburban District. After the City Survey, those survey numbers are numbered as CTS No.741, 741/1 to 741/7. The Defendant by an indenture of lease dated 20-6-1958 granted lease of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff for a period of 99 years. The rent payable by the Plaintiff was Rs.410/- per month. Clause (7) of the lease deed provided that within 20 years from the date of the lease the Plaintiff can exercise an option for purchasing the suit land for Rs.82,016/- by giving a notice of his intention to do so to the Defendant. Clause (4) of the lease deed provided that if the agreed rent is not paid by the Defendant for a period of 12 months or more and if the Plaintiff-lessee commits breach of any condition of the lease, the Defendant would be entitled to forfeit the lease and then would be entitled to the possession of the suit land. It is these two clauses of the lease deed which are really relevant and significant in so far as these Appeals are concerned.