Hajee Mohamed Hajee Moosa Sait vs The Globe Theatres Ltd.

Ramaswami, J.—Suit (a) for ejectment and delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises inclusive of the equipment, machinery, fittings

and furniture as detailed in schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint in the same condition in which they were at the time when the defendants were put in

possession subject to natural wear and tear; (b) for payment of Rs. 3362-10-0 being the difference in Corporation Tax paid by the plaintiff and (c)

for payment as mesne profits or damages for use and occupation a sum of Rs. 2,700/- from 1-3-1953 upto the date of filing the suit at Rs. 150/-

per day and similar mesne profits at the same rate from date of plaint till date of delivery of possession and (d) for costs.

The case for the plaintiff is : The plaintiff is the owner of the premises known as Roxy Theatre at Purasawalkam High Road, Madras. It was

leased out to the defendants under a lease deed dated 17-4-1946 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500 for the Talkie premises and a hire of Rs. 250/-

per month for the moveables, talkie equipment, furniture and fittings. The lease got determined on 21-10-1949.

But the defendants continued to occupy the theatre and make use of the machinery even after the expiry of the lease on the foot that they were

there as statutory tenants under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and intimated the plaintiff to this effect. Then

the plaintiff moved the State of Madras and by G. O. No. Ms. 270 dated 2-2-1953 the Government exempted the theatre from the operation of

the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act.

This notification of exemption was published at page 187 of the Fort St. George Gazette dated 11-2-1953. The plaintiff after receipt of the order

of the Government exempting the building from the operation of the Rent Control Act, issued notice to the defendants on 6-2-1953 terminating the

lease with effect from the expiry of 28-2-1953. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiff has filed this suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

The defendant''s case is that the exemption granted by the Government is not valid and they have no power to grant the exemption. The next

objection taken is that the notice to quit issued on 6-2-1953 was received by the defendant on 7-2-1953 while the order exempting building was

published in the Port St. George Gazette only on 11-2-1953 and therefore the notice is invalid. Thirdly, the defendants contend that the claim for

mesne profits at Rs. 150/-per diem is exorbitant.

Finally, in regard to the claim for excess property tax, the claim of Rs. 57-8-0 per half year as Library Cess is admitted by the defendants and the

claim for excess property tax before the period exempting the building from the operation of the Act is disputed on the ground that it would

constitute a premium forbidden to be received from a tenant and the claim for excess property tax after the period of exemption is disputed on the

ground that as the State Government has no power to grant the exemption the defendants are not tenants holding over but statutory tenants under

the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act and therefore any such claim would be in the nature of a premium.

The points for determination are (a) whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree directing the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of

premises Nos. 8 and 9 Purasawalkam High Road. Purasawalam, Madras, known as Roxy Theatre, together with the machinery, equipment and

fittings and furniture mentioned in Schedule 2 of the Plaint; (b) whether the notice given by the plaintiff is bad in law; (c) whether the plaintiff is

entitled to mesne profits and if so, at what, rate; and (d) whether the plaintiff is entitled to the excess property-tax.

Point (a):- The defendant''s case that the exemption granted by the Government was not valid and that the Government had no power to grant

the exemption was tested in Writ Appeal No. 27 of 1953 and the Bench composed of the learned Chief Justice and Panchapakesa Ayyar J.

upheld the exemption granted to the plaintiff as valid and this decision is reported as Globe Theatres Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Madras and

Others, ).

Thereupon the defendants took out an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and asked for stay of the present suit and the appellate

Court has directed that the suit would go on and that if a decree for possession is passed it would not be executed pending disposal of the intended

appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore point (a) fails.

Point (b):- The objection taken by the defendants is that the notice to quit was issued on 6-2-1953 and received by the defendants on 7-2-

1953 while the order exempting the building was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 11-2-1953 and therefore the notice is invalid, First

of all in this case that notice to quit was given after the receipt of the order of the Government by the plaintiff find before it appeared in Fort St

George Gazette. Therefore the notice has been issued in time.

Secondly, the plaintiff rightly contends that, whether exemption is granted or not, he is entitled to terminate the lease and file a suit for eviction, the

only handicap being that any decree obtained by him will not be executable if the Rent Control Act should apply to this building. It is now well

settled that a decree in ejectment can be passed by the Civil Court and all that the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act ensures is that

during the subsistence of that Act the Civil Court cannot execute the decree out the landlord will have to take appropriate steps under the

provisions of the said Act.

There is no taking away of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court but only an imposition of restrictions in regard to the mode of execution.

''Muhammadunny v. M. Unnuri'', AIR 1949 Mad 765 (B); In Re: V.R.R. Sami Ayyar, . I have just now mentioned how the defendants took out

an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and asked for stay of the present suit and how the appellate Court directed that the suit

would go on and that if a decree for possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff it will not be executed till the disposal of the intended appeal to

the Supreme Court. Therefore, point (b) fails.

Point (c):- On the materials before me I have come to the conclusion that the rent payable should be fixed at Rs. 2,500/- per month and this is

based upon the following factors. The defendants themselves are paying: for the New Globs Theatre Rs. 3,500/- per month. Rajakumari Talkies

which is situate in T. Nagar is fetching a rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month; Vide Ex. P-6. The lessees have paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.

25,000/- being treated as advance rent and the balance of Rs. 25,000/- as tenant''s deposit.

The lessees have undertaken to pay the property-tax. Ex. P. - 7 is the certified copy of the lease deed of the Wellington Talkies. The rent for this is

Rs. 3,000/- per month. The lessee has to spend every year Rs. 2,400/- towards improvements and additions and if in any year the said sum is not

spent it should be aggregated and spent in the succeeding years. Besides, the lessee has to insure the premises and fittings from loss or damage by

fire at the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, and pay the premium amounting to Rs. 1640/- per year.

The Broadway Talkies which is much smaller than the Roxy Theatre in accommodation is fetching a rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month.

The Odean Talkies is fetching a rent of Rs. 4250/- per month. The Paragon Talkies at Mount Road is paying a rent of Rs. 1700/- per month, for

the land alone, the entire building having been constructed by the lessees at their own cost. The Plaza Talkies at Mount Road is likewise paying a

rent of Rs. 1500/- per month for the ground alone. The lessees themselves have constructed the theatre at their own cost spending over three lakhs

of rupees. It is unnecessary to multiply these instances to show that the claim of Rs. 150/- per diem is not exorbitant.

But having regard to the recession in business and the downward trend of rents and the fact that the defendants are staging their first-class pictures

in the New Globe in Mount Road, Madras, and using the Roxy Talkies as a subsidiary or secondary Talkie house exhibiting second run and third-

run pictures and the Commissioner of Police has called upon the plaintiff to make structural alterations, I consider that Rs. 2,500/-per month is a

fair and reasonable rent.

I need not point out that this theatre is situated in a very good locality on the main Purasawalkam High Road and is served by buses from all parts

of the town and is situated in Anglo-Indian locality where English pictures are very popular and if first class pictures are exhibited the box office

receipts will inevitably improve and this figure of Rs. 2,500 can be stated to err more on the side of strictness rather than liberality.

In arriving at this figure I am well aware that it is not based upon scientific data or based upon irrefragable reasons or ran claim to be calculated

with mathematical precision. But then the only material made available to me is the rentals of other Cinema houses of more or less of the same

description. This no doubt, a recognised method of determining rent. This method is subject to this defect namely no two pieces of property can be

precisely similar in all their circumstances and conditions.

There must be differences always though of varying degrees and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the allowances to be made for such

differences. ''Improvement Trust of Bombay v. Karsondas'', 33 Bom 28 (D); - ''Raghunath Das v. Collector of Dacca'', 6 Ind Cas 457 (E). But

valuation is not an exact science. It is an enquiry relating to a subject abounding in uncertainties where there is more than ordinary guess work and

where it would be very unfair to require an exact exposition of reasons for the conclusions arrived at. It is not an algebraic problem which can be

solved by an abstract formula.

A certain amount of conjecture is inevitable but Courts should be careful not to go too far in this direction. This I have endeavoured to do. The

Assistant Development Officer Vs. Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori, - ''Secy. of State v. Charles-worth'', 26 Bom 1 (PC) (G); Secretary of State Vs.

Altaf Hossein, - Secretary of State Vs. Amulya Charan Banerjee and Others, ; - Collector of Dacca Vs. Gholam Kuddus Choudhury and Others,

- AIR 1925 211 (Privy Council) - ''Secy, of State v. Gobind Ram'', 11 Ind Cas 838 (Lah) (L) and - ''Amrit Lal v. Secy, of State'', 22 Ind Cas 78

(M). Point (c) is answered accordingly.

Point (d):- In regard to the claim for excess property tax it falls under two heads, viz., before the date of notification and after notification. In

regard to the claim for excess property-tax before exemption, the defendants contend that they are not liable on two grounds, viz. (i) that they are

not tenants holding over but statutory tenants and the claim could be made only if the statute allows it; and (ii) provisions of Ss. 6 and 5-A, Madras

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, prevent the landlord from recovering excess property-tax as it is in the nature of a premium and cannot be

recovered after the fair rent is fixed as it is prohibited under S. 6 of the said Act.

But as rightly contended for by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff, S. 6 does not equate Municipal tax with premium and though we have no

decided cases on this subject so far as this State is concerned, this Section is in ''pari materia'' with S. 4, United Provinces (Temporary) Control of

Rent and Eviction Act, 3 of 1947, and it has been field in - Someshwar Dayal Seth Vs. Shri Dwarkadhish Ji Maharaj, that municipal tax is not a

premium and could be recovered by the landlord. Similarly, it has been held by the Calcutta High Court in - Sarkar and Brothers (Properties) Ltd.

Vs. Anil Kumar Dutta and Others, construing S. 4, West Bengal Rent Control Act. 38 of 1948. Then it is also rightly contended by the learned

Advocate for the plaintiff that S. 5-A of the Act has also no application. That Section is intended to give an additional advantage to the landlord

when there are no special covenants between the parties authorising the landlord to recover property-tax from the tenant.

It has no application to a case as here where there is a specific covenant in favour of the landlord. The Rent Control Act does not abrogate all the

covenants between the parties except in regard to the rent and the grounds on which a tenant could be evicted. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to

recover the excess property-tax claimed by him.

But to what extent is the final point for consideration. It is not disputed before me that in the circumstances of this case it will be fair and equitable

to make the parties to bear this in moieties and point (d) is found accordingly.

In the result, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree directing the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit properties

including all the equipment, machinery, fittings, furniture, etc., to the plaintiff but that in view of the terms of the appellate Court''s order this delivery

of possession will be deferred till the disposal of the appeal in the Supreme Court which is said to have been filed; and for recovery of one-half of

Rs. 3362-10-0 being the difference in the Corporation Tax paid by the plaintiff and mesne profits or damages for use and occupation at the rate of

Rs. 2,500/- per month, from 1-3-1953 upto the date of delivery of possession and for costs. I certify for two counsel.