BANSRAJ LALTAPRASAD MISHRA Vs. STANLEY PARKER JONES
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on February 16,2006

BANSRAJ LALTAPRASAD MISHRA Appellant
VERSUS
STANLEY PARKER JONES Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NAMITA SAHA VS. SHYAMAL KANTI SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
SOCIETY FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION, REHABILITATION, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DR. MOTHER WANGMO VS. KIMTU DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-10-404] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI ATUL SOODAN & OTHERS. VS. AJIT KUMAR & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
PARDEEP KUMAR VS. ASHWANI KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-11-216] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION FOR VOLUNTARY ACTION VS. CHILD TRUST [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-377] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT BAZAR PATRIKA PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-251] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KUSUM LATA BANSAL VS. SRI AVADHESH KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. KAMINI KAPOOR [LAWS(CAL)-2014-4-63] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE SAINI VS. GAJ RAJ SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-159] [REFERRED TO]
LATE MOHD AHMED VS. LATE MAIRAJ AHMAD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-69] [REFERRED TO]
KANDASAMY VS. EKAMBARESHWARAR [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-355] [REFERRED]
M. SHANKAR VS. SWITCHING POWER CONVERSION PVT. LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-261] [REFERRED TO]
SPARSH BUILDERS PVT. LTD VS. MAHARISHI AYURVEDA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED LUCKNOW VS. RICHA SINGH KATIYAR [LAWS(ALL)-2010-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
SADANAND MISHRA VS. RAVINDRA SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-121] [REFERRED TO]
JASPAL KAUR CHEEMA AND ANR. VS. M/S INDUSTRIAL TRADE LINKS AND ORS. ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-61] [RELIED]
ABDUL AZIZ KHAN VS. GHULAM MOHAMMAD LANGOO [LAWS(J&K)-2021-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI SHARMA VS. MANJIT KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-789] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. TAHERUDDIN VS. MIR SABER ALI ALVI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
OUDH SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
AMALA PALIT VS. RATNA BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-2014-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
SHARADA BAI VS. NAVRATAN VYAS [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-70] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA JAIN VS. PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARISHI AYURVEDA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. SPARSH BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN SINGH & ORS. VS. URMILA DEVI & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-365] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV TANDON & ANR VS. RASHMI TANDON [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-325] [REFERRED TO]
KAMINI KAPOOR VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
KULWINDER SINGH BHATTI VS. NASEEB KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2020-5-44] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. Brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary:
(2.)The appellant filed Suit No. 6954/72 in the Bombay City Civil Court against the respondent inter alia with the following prayers :
(a) for possession of suit premises of Plots Nos. 81, 82 with shed at Gandhinagar, Bharat Bazar, Worli, Bombay,

(b) for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6, 175/- on account of compensation, and

(c) for mesne profits.

(3.)Certain interim reliefs were also claimed in this suit. The broad allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint were as follows :
(a) on request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to use the suit premises on the terms recorded in the Agreement dated 01-05-1091, which was an Agreement for leave and license for 11 months from that date;

(b) the compensation agreed between the parties was Rs. 475/- per month;

(c) the Defendant was to carry on the business of motor repairing in the suit premises and was not to change the user of the premises;

(d) that 2 months arrears of compensation would entitle the Plaintiff to terminate the Agreement by giving one months notice in writing and to enter upon the suit premises;

(e) the license could be renewed at the option of the Defendant by one months prior notice to the Plaintiff;

(f) that though the Agreement provided that the Defendant would deposit Rs. 6,000/- by way of security, the Defendant in fact paid only Rs. 5,000/-;

(g) that, the Defendant had issued 2 cheques respectively for Rs. 950/- and Rs. 793/- towards compensation, which were dishonoured;

(h) the Plaintiff by his Advocates letter dated 02-10-1971 informed the Defendant that, from May, 1971 to September, 1971 the Defendant had not paid compensation amount of Rs. 2,375/- and that, he had committed several breaches of the said license, that the license granted to the Defendant was revoked and that, the Defendant should pay the arrears and handover the vacant possession of the suit premises:

(i) the Plaintiff by his Advocates letter dated 13-04-1972 demanded the arrears of compensation of Rs. 5,225/- upto April, 1972, but the Defendant issued a cheque of Rs. 2,850/- towards compensation, which was also dishonoured.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.