9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the cinema building. 2. Applicability of the Rent Control Order. 3. Res judicata effect of prior findings. 4. Determination of mesne profits. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership of the Cinema Building: The primary issue was whether the plaintiff became the owner of the cinema building constructed on the leased site. The lease agreement stipulated that the lessee would construct a cinema theatre at the cost of Rs. 50,000, with the rent being Rs. 6,000 per annum. Upon the lease's termination, the lessees were to hand over vacant possession of the building to the lessor. The court scrutinized the lease-deed and found that the dominant intention was to lease out an open site for constructing a cinema building. The lessees were to be the undisputed proprietors of the theatre during the lease period, and the building would pass to the lessor at the lease's expiration. Thus, the plaintiff was deemed the owner of the open site, while the lessees owned the structure during the lease period. 2. Applicability of the Rent Control Order: The defendants argued that the first defendant had acquired the status of a statutory tenant under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, and his tenancy could not be determined without following its provisions. The court held that since the lease was of an open site and not a building, the Rent Control Order did not apply. Therefore, the plaintiff could claim possession without obtaining the Rent Controller's permission. 3. Res Judicata Effect of Prior Findings: The defendants contended that a finding in Civil Suit No. 131 of 1972, which held that the first defendant had advanced a loan of Rs. 50,000 at 8% per annum to the plaintiff, should operate as res judicata. The trial court initially rejected this argument, but upon appeal, the court considered Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states that an issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. The court concluded that the finding in the earlier suit would indeed operate as res judicata. 4. Determination of Mesne Profits: The appellants argued that the mesne profits awarded by the trial court were disproportionately high. The trial court had calculated the mesne profits based on the gross receipts from ticket sales and deducted expenses such as electricity, wages, and maintenance. The net profits were determined to be Rs. 2,498 per month. The appellants failed to produce their account books to support their claims of higher expenses. The court upheld the trial court's finding on mesne profits, noting that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to challenge the calculation. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appellants were granted time until January 15, 1987, to hand over possession in accordance with the trial court's directions. The court affirmed the plaintiff's ownership of the building, the inapplicability of the Rent Control Order, the res judicata effect of prior findings, and the determination of mesne profits.
|
