Mudholkar, J. - (1.) The question which falls for decision in this appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay is whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs in the City Civil Court, Bombay, was maintainable. The plaintiffs are some of the tenants occupying different rooms in a group of buildings knwn as Dhobi Chawls (and also known as the Colaba Land Mill Chawls) situate on Lala Nigam Road, Colaba, Bombay. There are a large number of other tenants also who reside or carry on business in these Chawls and the plaintiffs instituted a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all the tenants. The first defendant to the suit is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the remaining defendants 2 to 4 are landlords of the plaintiffs.
(2.) The buildings and the land on which they stand belong to the Colaba Land Mill Co., Ltd., Bombay. Under an agreement dated May 16, 1956 called the Demolition Agreement defendants 2 to 4 undertook for a certain consideration to demolish the buildings which are admittedly in a dilapidated condition after taking the permission of the Rent Controller, Bombay. Under cl. 7 of that agreement defendants 2 to 4 were to be put in possession of the buildings and land on which they stand, with leave and licence of the Company and were liable to pay Rs. 20,221-8-0 p. a. to the Company till the demolition of the buildings and thereafter they were to hold the land as tenants at will of the Company. Until the demolition of the buildings, defendants 2 to 4 were entitled to the rents payable by the tenants occupying the building and were liable to pay monthly taxes, insurance premia and other dues payable in respect of the buildings. After the demolition of the buildings defendants 2 to 4 were entitled to all the materials and debris but had to pay Rs. 40,000 as the price thereof to the company. Out of this amount these defendants had to pay and had actually paid Rs. 10,000/at the time of the agreement.
(3.) The plaintiffs' contention is that the buildings were in a dilapidated condition for a number of years and that between August 1951 and May 1956 as many as 138 notices were served on the Company for effecting repairs to the buildings but they took no action whatsoever in this regard. The plaintiifs further say that between November 1956 and January 29, 1960, eleven notices were served on defendants 2 to 4 for the same purpose but no action was taken by them either on those notices. Further the Company and defendants 2 to 4 were prosecuted 71 times for not complying with the notices but even these prosecutions proved ineffective. Their contention is that the Company as also defendants 2 to 4 deliberately refrained from carrying out the repairs because they wanted to demolish the buildings and in order to facilitate the attainment of this object they invited various notices issued by the Corporation and the prosecutions launched by it.;