1951 (7) TMI 18 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of possession of the property.
2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946.
3. Definition of "building" under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946.
4. Liability for damages or mesne profits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recovery of Possession of the Property:
The plaintiff sought recovery of possession of the property, excluding the superstructure of the Gaiety Theatre, from the first defendant after the termination of the lease. The property in question included various structures and open spaces, as detailed in the attached plan (Ex. P.1). The plaintiff's claim was based on a lease agreement that was to commence after the termination of the first defendant's lease on 1-5-1947. The first defendant, however, did not vacate the premises even after being called upon to do so.

2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946:
The first defendant argued that the plaintiff could not evict him from the property under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, as the property leased was a "building" within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act. The court initially ruled that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit due to the provisions of the Act. However, this view was later corrected based on a subsequent decision (AIR 1949 Mad 765) which clarified that the Civil Court could pass a decree for possession, although execution of the decree would require appropriate steps under the Rent Control Act.

3. Definition of "Building" under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946:
The main contention revolved around whether the property leased to the first defendant constituted a "building" under the Act. The court examined the nature of the structures, the purpose for which the property was leased, and the historical use of the premises. The court concluded that the property, including the Gaiety Theatre and associated structures, fell within the definition of "building" as per the Act. The definition included not only the superstructure but also the land on which it stood, the compound walls, and other appurtenant grounds.

4. Liability for Damages or Mesne Profits:
The plaintiff sought mesne profits or damages from the first defendant for the period of unauthorized occupation after the lease term ended. The court found that the lease agreement provided a three-month period for the first defendant to vacate the premises, which was authorized by the court. The plaintiff's claim against the receivers (defendants 2 to 7) for damages was dismissed as the extension of the lease period was lawful and within the receivers' authority.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the decision that the property leased to the first defendant was a "building" under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, thereby protecting the first defendant from eviction under the Act. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the first defendant's continued possession of the property was deemed lawful under the provisions of the Act. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages against the receivers, affirming that the lease extension was valid.