https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290480 An apportionment clause in a commercial lease on compulsory acquisition was construed by reading the instrument as a whole and in light of its commercial purpose, so the reference was to annual rent rather than monthly rent; the lessors were therefore entitled to twenty-five times the annual rent. On review, the High Court could invoke Order 41, Rule 33 CPC to grant relief to non-appealing proprietors, because omission to consider that discretionary power was treated as an error affecting complete justice. The appeal failed on both issues, and the High Court's decision was left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 24 Jan 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:01:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290480 An apportionment clause in a commercial lease on compulsory acquisition was construed by reading the instrument as a whole and in light of its commercial purpose, so the reference was to annual rent rather than monthly rent; the lessors were therefore entitled to twenty-five times the annual rent. On review, the High Court could invoke Order 41, Rule 33 CPC to grant relief to non-appealing proprietors, because omission to consider that discretionary power was treated as an error affecting complete justice. The appeal failed on both issues, and the High Court's decision was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Jan 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290480