1975 (11) TMI 178 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the civil court.
2. Legal right of the tenant to install machinery.
3. Potential damage caused by running a mill.
4. Relief sought by the plaintiffs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The trial court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit. This finding was in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

2. Legal Right of the Tenant to Install Machinery:
The trial court found that the premises were let out for commercial purposes, and therefore, no permission from the owners was required for installing machinery and running a mill, as it was also a commercial purpose. The tenant had obtained a license according to the rules of the Municipal Corporation, entitling them to install machinery in the premises to run the factory. The lower appellate court upheld this finding, stating that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the premises were let out only for running a business of food grains. It was held that the premises were let out for commercial purposes, and a commercial purpose includes an industrial purpose. Therefore, the tenant could use the premises for running a flour mill.

3. Potential Damage Caused by Running a Mill:
The trial court, after considering the evidence, held that no damage would be caused by the installation of an electric motor and machinery in the premises. The lower appellate court agreed with this view. Both courts found that the setting up of a flour mill would not cause damage to the shop. The plaintiffs' counsel conceded that this concurrent finding of fact could not be challenged in the Second Appeal.

4. Relief Sought by the Plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the tenant from installing an electric motor and machinery in the shop. However, both the trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the suit. The appellate court emphasized that the premises were not leased for any specific purpose but for commercial purposes. The proposed user of the shop for a flour mill was partly commercial and partly industrial. Since the original letting was not for any specific purpose, the mere change in the user of the shop did not amount to a violation under the first part of clause (O) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The concurrent findings of the lower courts that the installation would not cause any damage were upheld.

Conclusion:
The second appeal was dismissed with costs. The court held that the dismissal of the suit by the lower courts was correct, not because the flour mill was entirely commercial in nature, but because the owners had no cause of action under either part of clause (O) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The premises were not let out for any specific purpose, and the proposed new user would not cause damage. Therefore, the plaintiffs' request for an injunction was denied.