ANANT GADRE Vs. GOMTIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment dated 31st October 1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshanga-bad, decreeing the suit for ejectment and mesne profits in respect of a cinema hall situated at Itarsi and dismissing the appellant's counter-claim.

(2.) The suit was instituted by the original plaintiff Maoji on 27th January 1975. Maoji died during the pendency of the suit on 16th January 1978 and his legal representatives who are respondents in this appeal were substituted in his

(3.) The suit is based on an oral lease of the cinema hall given by Maoji in favour of the appellant which was terminated by notice with effect from 1st February 1975. The cinema hall was first leased out in 1958 to the appellant. Thereafter, it was again leased out in 1968. The monthly rent agreed was Rs. 900/-. As there is no writing evidencing the lease, the tenancy has been treated to be from month to month, and there is no dispute between the parties on that point. The trial Court held that the lease was really a lease of cinema business and was not covered by the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and, therefore, it was not necessary to plead and prove any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the Act. Even so, the trial Court held the need of the plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (f) to be established. The trial Court also decided an issue having reference to Section 12 (1) (m) in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court allowed the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy. It further directed that in case the appellant did not vacate within two months from the date of the decree, the plaintiff would be entitled to get mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of the suit. There was a counter-claim by the appellant. The appellant's case was that he made certain constructions with the consent of the plaintiff in which he spent Rs. 31,954.18 and that he was entitled to get this amount from the plaintiff. The counterclaim was dismissed on the finding that the constructions were not made with the consent of the plaintiff.