TILOKCHAND NATHMAL AGARWAL Vs. GANPATDAS BHAGWANDAS BAIRAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TILOKCHAND v. Ganpatdas (J. R. Mudholkar J.) [prs. 2-8] Bombay 99 and therefore he inducted the defendant on the premises under an agreement the terms of which have been set out fully in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. It is not necessary to reproduce all those terms except one and that is that the defendant was to be liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 101/- per month by way of his share in the profits of the shop which the defendant was going to run in that block.

(2.) IT is common ground that for the period in suit the defendant has not paid to the plaintiff any money in pursuance of this term and therefore the latter had to institute the suit out of which this second appeal arises.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the defendant that the transaction in question was in fact a sub lease made by the plaintiff in contravention of Cl. 12-A of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. Therefore, according to him, the agreement between the parties was rendered void under S. 23 of the Contract Act and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything from him. He also contended that the owner of the house in which the block is situate was one Balgovind, that the plain tiff was a tenant not of Balgovind but of one Sheodas who claims to own the house and that as Sheodas has failed to establish his title against Balgovind the plaintiff could not get the status of a tenant and therefore could not in law create the relationship of a sub-lesser and sub-lessee between himself and the defendant.