LOKASHAN JAIN UDYOG MANDIR Vs. KALOORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil regular first appeal by the plaintiff Lokashan Jain Udoyog Mandir ltd. , a registered company under voluntary liquidation through its liquidators, against the judgment and decree of Senior Civil judge, Jodhpur dismissing its suit on the ground that the agreement of lease on which the suit was founded was compulsorily registrable but it was not registered.

(2.) BY this agreement dated the 2nd January, 1950 the defendant-respondent kalooram obtained a lease from the plaintiff of the right to run a printing press for a period of three years together with the entire machinery, types, furniture etc. , which was part and parcel of the press. It was stipulated between the parties that the defendant would pay a sum of Rs. 4511/-annually for the right he had acquired. It was further agreed between them that this agreement was to last for a period of three years certain on either side and that if the defendant should give up the contract before the stipulated period of three years, he would be responsible for reimbursing the plaintiff for such loss as might be caused to it thereby. A list of the entire machinery, types, furniture etc. , was prepared, and signatures of the defendant were obtained thereon, and it was also agreed that the defendant would return certain quantities of unused types as well as used types, which had been given over to him, or their price at the end of the expiry of the lease. Another important condition of the agreement was that liberty was reserved for the defendant to be able to remove the printing machines to any other place in the city of Jodhpur (where the press was situated) provided that the defendant would bring the machines back to such place as the plaintiff might desire. Yet another condition was that in case the defendant should think it fit to hire another house for carrying on the business of the press, then such alternative accommodation should be obtained with the consent of the directors of the plaintiff company and the rent note therefore executed in the name of the plaintiff company and the defendant would continue to pay the rent on behalf of the plaintiff, and if he failed to do so, he would be responsible for compensating the plaintiff for such losses as might be caused to it. It was also agreed between the parties that the defendant would pay all expenses himself for the running of the press including the repairs to the machinery and the salary of the staff and the rent for the house in which the press was situated. There were certain other stipulations mentioned in the agreement but we do not consider it necessary to refer to them for the purposes of this appeal.

(3.) NOW the plaintiff's case, put briefly, was that the defendant had paid the rent for the press at the stipulated rate for the first two years but failed to pay the third year's rent amounting to Rs. 4522/ -. It was further alleged that the defendant had also failed to return a certain quantity of the printing types on the expiry of the lease, the estimated cost of which was Rs. 4,000/- at the rate of Rs. 1/,4/-per lb. To this the plaintiff added the sum of Rs. 1718/-as interest on the amounts aforesaid and thus filed a suit for the total amount of Rs. 10,240/- in the Court of district Judge, Jodhpur on 6th of November, 1954, which was later transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur.