1958 (4) TMI 113 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court grants ownership to Temple Trust, orders rent recovery and injunction against interference.

Dr. K.A. Dhairyawan and others Versus J.R. Thakur and others

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting the appellants a declaration that the building belonged to the Mankeshwar Temple Trust. The appellants were ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to the building and possession thereof.2. Applicability of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.3. Interpretation of the lease agreement.4. Entitlement to rents and profits from the building.5. Non-joinder of necessary parties.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to the Building and Possession Thereof:The appellants, as trustees of the Mankeshwar Temple Trust, filed a suit seeking a declaration that they were entitled to the building in question, possession of the same, and recovery of rents and profits. The trial court partially decreed in favor of the appellants, granting them possession and an injunction against the defendants from interfering with their possession. However, the trial court refused to direct the defendants to obtain letters of attornment from the tenants. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision and dismissed the suit with costs.2. Applicability of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947:The respondents argued that they were protected under the Act and could not be evicted from the demised premises. The Supreme Court held that while the respondents could not be evicted from the land as they were statutory tenants under the Act, this protection did not extend to the building constructed on the land. The Act provided the respondents with the status of statutory tenants but did not continue the lease beyond the specified period.3. Interpretation of the Lease Agreement:The primary issue was whether the lease (Exbt. A) demised only the land or both the land and the building to be constructed on it. The lease specified the land area and rent but did not explicitly state that the building would be included in the demise. The Supreme Court examined various clauses of the lease and concluded that the ownership of the building remained with the lessees during the lease term. The lessees had the right to remove the building under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act but had contracted to hand it over to the lessors without compensation at the end of the lease. The Court found no clause indicating that the building was demised along with the land.4. Entitlement to Rents and Profits from the Building:The appellants sought a declaration that they were entitled to the rents and profits from the building. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to such a declaration, as the building belonged to the Mankeshwar Temple Trust after the lease expired. The respondents could not interfere with the collection of rents and profits by the appellants.5. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:The respondents argued that the suit was bad due to the non-joinder of necessary parties, specifically the legal representatives of defendant No. 4, who had died before the suit was instituted. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the suit could proceed in the absence of these parties. The trial court had already conceded that the suit could not be dismissed merely because of the non-joinder of defendant No. 4's legal representatives.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decision, and granted the appellants a declaration that the building belonged to the Mankeshwar Temple Trust. The appellants were entitled to recover all rents and profits from the building, and the first respondent was directed to account for the rents received from May 23, 1948, with interest. An injunction was issued restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellants' collection of rents and profits.Appeal allowed.