GLOBE THEATRES LTD Vs. KHAN SAHEB ABDUL GHANI
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GLOBE THEATRES LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7, LINDSAY STREET, CALCUTTA
KHAN SAHEB ABDUL GHANI,KHAN SAHEB ABDUL SHAKOOR
Click here to view full judgement.
MEDAPA, CJ. -
(1.)This appeal is against the judgment and decree in O.S. 21 of 1948 on the file of the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, dismissing the appellants' plaintiffs' suit for the refund of Rs. 41,090 said to be the excess amount of rent paid by the plaintiffs to the respondents from 22-6-43 to 1-10-46 in respect of suit premises, No. 6, South Parade, Civil Station, Bangalore.
(2.)The facts of the case leading up to this appeal briefly stated are as follows. The plaintiffs (Globe Theatres Ltd.) were exhibiting cinema shows in the suit premises which they had leased from one Kanmull since 15-7-37 on a rental of Rs. 950 per month. The defendants purchased the suit premises on 22-1-43 and the plaintiffs executed a lease deed (Exhibit I) in their favour on 12-4-43 for a period of 3 years agreeing to pay rent at Rs. 2,000 per month. They renewed the lease once again under a lease deed (Exhibit II) dated 26-3-46 for another period of 3 years agreeing to pay the same rent of Rs. 2,000 per month. The plaintiffs applied on 2-7-46 to the House Bent Controller under Clauses 4 and 5 of the Civil and Military Station of Bangalore House Rent Control Order, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order, 1945) for the fixation of fair rent on the ground that the rent stipulated in the lease was excessive. The House Rent Controller found that no case had been made out under Clause 4 of the Control Order, 1945, to hold that the rent fixed was excessive and that therefore there was no need to fix a fair rent under Clause 5 of the said order and dismissed the petition. Exhibit A is a copy of the order. The said order was taken in appeal before the hon'ble Resident and during the pendency of the appeal the Bangalore House Rent and Accommodation Control Law, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Law, 1946) came into force with effect from 1-10-46. There was no section in this law corresponding to Clause 4 of the Control Order, 1945 and under Section 5, the Controller was bound to fix the fair rent, if an application was made for that purpose by a tenant or landlord. The Hon'ble Resident therefore remanded the case to the Controller directing him to give a decision under Section 5 of the Control Law, 1946. Exhibit B is a copy of his order. The Controller thereafter fixed Rs. 950 as fair rent and allowed an increase of Rs. 400 over the fair rent or a rent of Rs. 1,350 per mensem with effect from 1-10-46 as per the original of Exhibit C. There was an appeal against this order under Section 14 of the Control Law, 1946 and the Hon'ble Resident confirmed the order of the Controller subject to the modification that an increase of Rs. 450 should be allowed over the fair rent of Rs. 950. Exhibit D is a copy of the order.
(3.)The appellants had also contended before the Hon'ble Resident that the Controller should have ordered the refund or adjustment of excess rents paid by them to the respondents in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Clause 6 of the Control Order, 1945 and Section 7 of the Control Law, 1946. The Hon'ble the Resident in his order observed that Clause 6 of the Control Order, 1945 and Section 7 of the Control Law, 1946 wore only declaratory and the Controller was therefore not competent to give the directions which the appellants required. He further observed that the appellants, if so advised, might move the civil courts for necessary reliefs. The suit filed by the appellants for obtaining the refund or adjustment in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble the Resident was dismissed. Hence this appeal by the appellants (Plaintiffs).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.