KUSUMCHAND Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated July 25, 1967, whereby he accepted the plain-tiffs' case and granted a decree.

(2.) THE brief facts which deserve to be recalled for the disposal of this appeal are that Gulabchand carried on business in the name and style of Gulabchand Malpani at Mumbadevi, Bombay, which locality is reputed as a business centre for jewellery. Gulabchand was a tenant of two rooms owned by Amba Laxmi Narain Gundeli on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- apart from municipal tax of Rs. 6/5/- for every half year. In Smt. year 2001, Gulabchand says, he sublet these rooms to the defendants' firm carrying business in the name of Chhaganlal Kantilal. It was agreed that besides the payment of rent to the landlord Chhaganlal would pay a sum of Rs. 700/- per annum to the plaintiff on account of 'goodwill. ' Up to the year 2004 and a part of Smt. year 2055 Chhaganlal kept his promise and paid the amount but thereafter the neglected to do so. THE plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur District on May 28, 1953 against Kantilal, proprietor of Firm Chhaganlal Kantilal for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2100/- by way of good-will and Rs. 543/15/- by way of rent and municipal tax and -/13/6 as notice expenses. THE defendants admitted that they had obtained two rooms from the plaintiff on the monthly rent stated by him in Smt. year 2001 but added that no agreement had been reached with regard to the payment of any 'good-will' money. It was also urged that the landlord stopped charging rent from 15-7. 1951 and further that a suit in regard to that property did not lie in Rajasthan courts. THE trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit on 23-5-1956. An appeal was taken in the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur District, who found that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction account of S. 28 of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947. THE matter came to this Court and it was held that the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 had a limited applicability and could not oust the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Courts. THE case was remanded to the appellate court. THE District Judge, Jaipur District heard the parties and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on August 29, 1961 for the payment of Rs. 2,100/-on account of 'goodwill' but passed a decree for Rs. 544/12/6. THEre is no dispute regarding the decree passed by the learned District Judge for the rent in the sum of Rs. 544/12/6. In the appeal, which was preferred to this Court by the plaintiff's legal representatives, because the plaintiff had died by then, against the rejection of claim in the sum of Rs. 2,100/-, the learned Single Judge held that because the defendants had not produced their books of account and because the concept of goodwill included the premises the plaintiffs were entitled to the decree claimed by them. He, however, granted leave to the defendant for appeal. Dissatisfied, the defendants have preferred this appeal.