SYED ALI KAISER Vs. MSTT AYESHA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant and it arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of a cinema house on the expiry of the lease. The plaintiffs case is that she is the owner of premises No. 2-C. Krishna Lal Das Road on which the disputed cinema house stands. The major nortion of the suit premises along with fittings, fixtures and furniture was demised to the defendant under a registered Deed of Lease dated June 29, 1951 for the purpose of showing cinema films and for variety shows and other light entertainments The lease was for a term of 15 years commenting from 1st June 1951 with option of renewal by the lessee for a further period of one year. The rent reserved was at a progressive rate, the rent for the last five years being at the rate of Rs. 1,150/- per month and the same rate of rent was also reserved in case the lessee exercised the option for a further period of one year. On the expiry of the original term of 15 years the defendant exercised his option for a further period of one year and on the expiry of the said further period on 31st May 1967 he was served with a notice by the plaintiff demanding possession. The defendant having failed to comply with the notice the plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of possession. In the suit the plaintiff claimed liquidated damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per diem on account of wrongful occupation of the defendant in terms of a covenant contained in the lease.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant and his defence, inter alia, was that the plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the suit inasmuch as she is a Pakistani National and in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce Notification No. 12/2/65 E. PTY. dated 10th September 1965 issued under R. 133 (V) Of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 the suit property vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property with effect from 10th September 1965. The further defence of the defendant was that he was persuaded and induced to sign the lease on the express representation and assurance that the lease was for the term of 25 years and the signature of the defendant was obtained by fraud and mis-representation. The defendant alleged that he had put his signature without knowing the contents of the document. Accordingly it was claimed that the document was vitiated for want of intelligent execution, and also fraud on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that he was in lawful occupation in accordance with the real agreement between the parties which, however, was not fraudulently incorporated in the lease.

(3.) The trial court upon a consideration of the evidence adduced in the suit came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not a Pakistani citizen but that she was an Indian citizen and held that the suit was perfectly maintainable by her. On the question of fraud and mis-representation the trial court found in favour of the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that the document was executed by the defendant with full knowledge about the terms and conditions of the lease. The trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the demised premises on the expiry of the period fixed by the lease. The trial court, further held that the amount fixed in the document by way of liquidated damages should be paid by the defendant for his wrongful occupation. The suit was accordingly decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Against the said decision the defendant has come up in appeal.