TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the agreement created a lease of the open site only, with the lessees retaining ownership of the cinema structure during the lease and consequently no protection under the Rent Control Order; (ii) whether the earlier finding that the first defendant had advanced the construction amount as a loan operated as res judicata under Explanation VIII to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (iii) whether the mesne profits fixed by the trial Court were excessive.
Issue (i): whether the agreement created a lease of the open site only, with the lessees retaining ownership of the cinema structure during the lease and consequently no protection under the Rent Control Order
Analysis: The terms of the registered lease deed showed that the dominant arrangement was a lease of open land for constructing a cinema theatre, with the lessees obliged to erect the structure at their cost and continue as proprietors of the theatre during the lease. The clauses concerning adjustment of construction cost against rent, removal of fittings on termination, and transfer of the building to the lessor at the end of the term were consistent only with a lease of the site and not of the building. The Rent Control Order applied to a lease of a house and not to an open site.
Conclusion: The lease was of the open site only, the structure belonged to the lessees during the lease, and no protection under the Rent Control Order was available.
Issue (ii): whether the earlier finding that the first defendant had advanced the construction amount as a loan operated as res judicata under Explanation VIII to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Analysis: Explanation VIII was construed broadly to give full effect to res judicata and to include decisions on issues finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction, even if that court could not try the later suit. The earlier finding in the civil suit that the amount had been advanced as a loan was therefore capable of binding the parties in the present suit. However, that finding did not alter the legal character of the transaction, because the lease deed still showed that the defendants were lessees of the open site only and that the building would pass to the lessor only on expiry of the lease.
Conclusion: The earlier finding operated as res judicata, but it did not assist the appellants on the question of tenancy or ownership of the structure.
Issue (iii): whether the mesne profits fixed by the trial Court were excessive
Analysis: The trial Court based its calculation on the collection figures reflected in the entertainment-tax returns and on evidence regarding operating expenses. The appellants did not produce account books to substantiate a lower figure or to show the actual income-tax burden. The finding on net profits was supported by the material on record.
Conclusion: The mesne profits were not shown to be excessive.
Final Conclusion: The decree for possession and mesne profits was upheld in full, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A prior finding on an issue finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction can operate as res judicata under Explanation VIII to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but the true legal effect of the parties' rights must still be determined from the construction of the underlying transaction.
TaxTMI 
