GOSWAMI MALTI VAHUJI MAHARAJ Vs. PURUSHOTTAM LAL PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1907, the suit property, premises No. 6, Kanulal Lane belonged to one Goswamini Shree Radha Vahuji Maharaj and one Shree Giridharilalji Maharaj jointly having undivided half share each therein. Radha Vahuji by a registered deed of lease dated 9-10-1907 leased out her half undivided share in the said property to one Gordhandas Poddar for 51 years from 1-9-1907.

(2.) By two separate registered deeds of lease dated 9-10-1907 and 19-12-1908 respectively, Giridharilalji also leased out his undivided half share in the said premises to the same Gordhandas Poddar for 51 years from 1-9-1907. Thus Gordhandas became the lessee in respect of the entire premises No. 6, Kanulal Lane. Giridharilalji died on 6-12-1908 leaving his last will and testament whereby he appointed his wife Sm. Krishna Priya as the executrix. Probate of this will was duly obtained on 7-3-1973. Pursuant to the authority given under the said will, Krishna Priya adopted Govardhaneshji on 14-12-1946. Krishna Priya died thereafter and Govardhaneshji became the co-owner of the undivided half share in the suit property. The other undivided half share of the property of Radha Vahuji devolved on one Brojobhusan and one Mahaluxmi jointly and they became the joint co-owners of the other undivided half share.

(3.) The lease granted by Giridharilalji expired by efflux of time on 31-8-58. There was an option for renewal for 5 years and the option was exercised and the tenant remained in possession. The option period expired by efflux of time on 31-8-63. In the meantime, the original tenant Gordhandas died, on 3-10-62 the heir and legal representative of the deceased tenant. Gordhandas, the present defendant Purushottam, sent a cheque on account of 12 months rent from October 1962 to September 1963 which was received by Goverdhaneshji (hereinafter referred to as the original plaintiff). On 21-8.-63, the original plaintiff, through his soliciter Messrs. Nanavati & Co. served a notice of ejectment on the defendant and by a money order dated 30-8-63, sent back the rent for the month of September, 1963. The defendant refused to accept the said money order.