TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (8) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which later came to be known as "Central Cafe Udipi" of which he was the owner and which was conducted in tenanted premises. This restaurant was situated at Vishvas Nivas King, Edward road Parel, Bombay. The period of this agreement was for five years commencing from December 25, 1956 '. with an option to renew the same. Under the agreement, defendant No. 3 was referred to as the owner and the plaintiff was referred to as the conductor. It is significant that in the opening part of the agreement the expression "conductor" was defined as inclusive of the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the plaintiff. This agreement provided that all furniture, pots, pans, utensils and things mentioned in the list attached thereto would continue to belong to defendant No. 3 and the plaintiff admitted this fact. Certain payments were to be made by the plaintiff to defendant No. 3 by way of royalty. On January 11, 1958 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant No. 1 permitting defendant No. 1 to conduct the business for the unexpired period of the agreement dated December 25, 1956 which was about for four years and the agreement further provided that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only contesting defendant appearing in the court gave different and inconsistent versions of what had happened. In his affidavit dated March 26, 1959 filed by him in a notice of motion dated March 4, 1959 in the said suit, he stated that the possession of the said restaurant was given to him with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. In the said affidavit, it was also stated that it was the plaintiff who gave him the possession of the said restaurant on February 15, 1959. In his written statement defendant No. 3 alleged that it was defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who had handed over the possession of the said restaurant to him on behalf of the plaintiff. Curiously, defendant No. 1 filed a written statement in which he was never put in possession on the restaurant and the agreement between him and the plaintiff was never acted upon. No written statement was filed by defendant No. 2 who was conducting the business of the said restaurant. What is more curious is that he was present in the Trial Court through out the trial suit never stepped into the witness box and defendant No. 3 in his evidence gave different versions as to how he had obtained possession of the said restaurant. At one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... month from the date of filing of the suit till the plaintiff was put in possession. 7. Defendant No. 3 appealed against this decision to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The High Court agreed with the assessment of the evidence made by the Trial Court and totally disbelieved the case put up by defendant No. 3 that he had obtained possession of the aforesaid business and the premises in which it was conducted either with the knowledge or with the consent of the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that defendant No. 3 had surreptitiously obtained the possession of the aforesaid business and premises by collusion and behind the back of the plaintiff. The High Court noted the serious inconsistencies in the evidence given by defendant No. 3 and his witnesses and rejected their evidence. The High Court pointed out that a couple of documents produced by defendant No. 3 appeared to be extremely doubtful and had little sanctity either in fact or in the eye of law. The High Court took the view that defendant No. 3 had acted high-handedly and had wrongfully taken possession of the said business and the premises behind the back of the plaintiff and the acts of defendant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Rant Rattan and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1977CriLJ433 . The Division Bench comprising of three learned Judges held that a true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser while he is in the act or process of trespassing but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances, the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies under the law. In the present case, we may point out that there was no question of the plaintiff entering upon the premises as a trespasser at all, as she had entered into the possession of the restaurant business and the premises where it was conducted as a licensee and in due course of law. Thus, defendant No. 3 was not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff unlawfully and behind her back as has been done by him in the present case. It was pointed out by Mr. Tarkunde that some of the observations referred to above were in connection with a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or analogous provisions in the earlier Specific Relief Act, 1877....