NIPPON MENKWA KALMSHIKI Vs. FPORTLOCK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in this case, the Japanese Cotton Trading Company, purchased, on the 29th July 1920, the remainder of a sub-lease of Gool Mansion, Mayo Road. The building comprises eight flats, of which one is in the occupation of the defendants as tenants. The plaintiffs purchased the building in order to provide residence for their Japanese staff, and the day after the purchase gave the defendants notice to quit on the 1 of October 1920. The defendants attorned to the plaintiffs and paid rent which was accepted up to the 1 of October, but as they pleaded the Bombay Rent Act and declined to quit, the plaintiffs have filed this suit.

(2.) The following issues were raised :- (1) Whether the purchase of the property in suit by the plaintiffs is not ultra tires of the Company, and if so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain this suit? (2) Whether the plaintiffs require the premises in suit reasonably and bona fide for their own use and occupation within the meaning of Section 9(2) of the Bent Act? (3) Whether there is satisfactory cause within the meaning of Section 9(2) of the Rent Act?

(3.) I disallowed the first issue, as the defendants having attorned the plaintiffs are estopped from denying the title of their landlord. Further, it can make no difference to them, whether the suit is brought by the Company itself or by the purchasing directors.