Vasudev Gopalkrishna Tamwekar Vs. The
Board of Liquidators Happy home Co-Operative Housing [1963] INSC 154 (10 May
1963)
10/05/1963 SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) SINHA,
BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) SHAH, J.C.
AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA
CITATION: 1967 AIR 369
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1981 SC 537 (20)
ACT:
Co-operation-Arbitration-House building
society-Noncompliance with terms of the Agreement-Agreement whether executory
contract or one creating Landlord and Tenant relationship-Jurisdiction of
Arbitrators under Bombay Cooperative Societies Act (Bom. 7 of 1925),
s.54-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, (Bom. 57 of
1947), s. 28.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent obtained a lease of land to be
allotted to its members for building purposes and advanced loans for construction.
The premium in respect of the land and the loan advanced, together with
interest, were repayable in monthly installments. Through the agency of the
society, the appellant completed the construction and occupied the building. An
agreement between the appellant and the society was duly registered which
provided that the loan advanced to the appellant should be paid in 366 or
smaller monthly installments, and after the entire amount of the loan had been
repaid, the society would execute a sub-lease in respect of the plot in favour
of the appellant. In the event of default in the payment of an installment,
fixed in the agreement, the society hand the right to determine the agreement,
and thereupon any amount already paid would be forfeited to the society, and
the member was to surrender the property and give vacant possession of the
premises to the society. In view of the default in payment and persistent
refusal of the appellant to comply with the terms of the agreement the society
referred the dispute to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for decision by
himself or his nominee. The Committee of Arbitrators, appointed by the
Registrar, gave an award in favour of the society asking the appellant to
deliver vacant possession of the plot and the house to the society and to pay
compensation for unauthorised use and occupation of the premises and to pay
costs of the arbitration proceedings. Against the aforesaid order, the
appellant's revisional application was also dismissed by the Tribunal. The 965
award was certified and filed in the Bombay City Civil Court for execution. The
appellant, thereupon, took out chamber summons for stay of the execution
proceedings on the ground that the Award made by the Arbitrators was without
jurisdiction for the reason that under the agreement between the society and
the appellant a relationship of landlord and tenant was created and that under
the Bombay Rent Control Act 57/47 the Court of Small Causes was vested with
exclusive jurisdiction to decide claim for recovery of rent or possession. The
learned judge made the summons absolute.
On appeal by the society, the High Court set
aside the order and directed the execution of the Award to proceed. On appeal
by certificate this Court.
Held, (i) on a proper construction of the
agreement as a whole, it was an executory contract and on the appellant
fulfilling his obligations to the society, including the payment of the entire
dues, the society would execute the sub-lease in his favour subject to the
consent of the Government who held the first mortgage on the entire land.
Until the sub-lease was executed no
relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties. As the
appellant failed to fulfill his part of the agreement, the law laid down in the
Act, in order to realise the dues of the society, had to be put into operation.
The Award was, therefore, a valid Award and there was absolutely no
justification for the plea that the appellant was a tenant governed by the
provisions of the Rent Control Act.
(ii) in order that the jurisdiction of an
arbitrator, appointed under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, be excluded,
the proceedings before him must be between landlord and tenant, and relate to
the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which the provisions of
Part II of the Act applied. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of courts other
than those named in s. 28 of the Bombay Act 1947 arose only if the claim of the
applicant or plaintiff was based on the allegation that between him and the
respondent or the defendant there was a relationship of landlord and tenant and
the relief sought was one that we s referred to in that section.
Babulal Bhuramal v. Nandram Shivram A.I.R.
1958 S. C.
677, held inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 578 of 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
March 12, 1959.
of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
685 of 1956.
966 W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi,
for the appellant.
B.R. Naik, M. R. Krishna Pillai and K. R.
Chaudhuri, for the respondent.
1963. May 10. The judgment of the Court was
delivered by SINHA C. J.-This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay is directed against the judgment and order of a
Division Bench of that Court, dated March 12,1959, reversing those of the judge
of the Bombay Civil Court, passed in Chamber Summons, in Arbitration case No.
A.B.N./C.H.O.-2310/88 of 1954-55.
It is necessary to state the following facts
in order to bring out the points in controversy between the parties.
The Happy Home Cooperative Housing Society
Ltd -hereinafter referred to as the Society was registered in February 1949. It
obtained a lease of a piece of land measuring about 12 thousand sq. yards
situate at Nehru Road, Vile Parle (East) Bombay. The Society divided this land
into 17 plots to be allotted to each one of its members for building purposes.
A member was under the obligation of payment of premium, annual rent of Re.
1/-, and other incidental charges and to construct a house on the plot.
The Society advanced loans to the members to
enable them to construct their houses. The premium in respect of the land and
the loan advanced, as aforesaid, together with interest, was repayable in
monthly installments. Accordingly, Plot. No. 10, measuring about 676 sq. yds.
was allotted to the appellant, and other plots were similarly allotted to other
members for constructing their respective houses. Through the agency of the
Society, the appellant constructed a house on his plot. The construction was
completed and the appellant 967 occupied the building on or about May 1, 1951.
The sum of Rs. 26,922/odd was advanced by way of loan, to the appellant. An
agreement dated March 26, 1952 was entered into between the appellant and the
Society in respect of the loan aforesaid, and the document was duly registered
on May 27, 1952. The agreement between the appellant and the Society provided
that the amount of loan aforesaid advanced to the appellant should be repaid in
366 or smaller monthly installments and after the entire amount of the loan had
been repaid, the Society would execute a sub-lease in respect of Plot No. 10 in
favour of the appellant. It was further stipulated that in the event of default
in the payment of an instalment, fixed in the agreement, the Society had the
right to determine the agreement; and thereupon any amounts already paid would
be forfeited to the Society and the member was to surrender the property and
give vacant possession of the premises to the Society. It appears that no
installment was paid by the appellant with the result that on August 26, 1954,
the Society gave notice to him, calling upon him to give vacant possession of
the premises, but the appellant did not comply with the notice. In view of the
persistent refusal of the appellant to comply with the terms of the agreement,
the Society referred to dispute with the appellant under s. 54 of the Bombay
Co-operative Societies Act (Bombay Act VII of 1925) which hereinafter will be
referred to as the Act, to the Registrar for decision by himself or his
nominee. The said dispute was heard and decided by a Committee of Arbitrators,
appointed by the Registrar, Co operative Societies, consisting of three
gentlemen. (1) a nominee of the Society as plaintiff, (2) nominee of the Appellant,
as defendant, and (3) nominee of the Registrar, who was to be the Chair man.
The said Committee of Arbitration, by majority, gave an award in favour of the
Society to the effect that the appellant do deliver vacan 968 possession of
Plot, No. 10, along with the house, to the Society and pay Rs. 150/per month as
compensation for unauthorised use and occupation of the premises from October
1, 1954, to the date of the delivery of vacant possession.
The appellant was also made liable for
payment of costs of the arbitration proceedings. Thereupon the appellant made a
revisional application to the Bombay Co-operative Tribunal, contending that the
dispute between the Society and himself was essentially a dispute between
landlord and tenant regarding the possession of the premises and the recovery
of rent and that the only Court that had jurisdiction to decide such a
controversy was the Small Causes Court in Greater Bombay, in view of s. 28 of
the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act (Bombay Act 57 of
1947).
After hearing the parties, the Tribunal
negatived the contention raised on behalf of the appellant and dismissed the
revisional application. After the Award was certified under s. 59 of the Act,
the Award was filed in the Bombay City Civil Court for execution. Thereupon the
appellant took out a Chamber Summons against the Society for stay of the
execution proceedings. The learned Judge who heard the Chamber Summons held
that the Award made by the Arbitrators was without jurisdiction, in view of the
provisions of s. 28 of the Rent Control Act. Accordingly, the summons was made
absolute on October 16, 1956. From that order the Society came up in appeal to
the High court. The High Court, on a consideration of the terms of the
agreement aforesaid, of March 26, 1952, and after elaborate arguments raised by
the parties as to the legal effect of that document came to the conclusion that
it was only an agreement to lease, binding the Society to grant a sub-lease
only after the appellant had fully paid all the installments due, and fulfilled
other conditions of the agreement, as stipulated between the parties. In that
view of the matter, the High Court held that there was no 969 relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties. In the result, the learned judges set
aside the order under appeal before them, and directed that the execution of
the Award be proceeded with in accordance with law, with costs to the Society
in both the Courts. It is from this judgment and order that this appeal has been
brought to this Court, on a certificate being granted by the High Court.
The main question in controversy in this case
is whether the Award made under the Act, which became a decree of the Civil
Court, under the certificate of the Registrar; under s. 59, was without
jurisdiction, and, therefore, incapable of execution. The answer to this
question depends upon the answer to the other question whether the appellant
was a 'tenant' under the Society, by virtue of the agreement aforesaid of March
26, 1952. If it is held that the agreement aforesaid did not create the
relationship of landlord and tenant, but that the appellant continued to be the
debtor of the Society until all the outstanding amount advanced to him in
respect of the plot and the structure bad been liquidated, the Rent Control
Act, and s. 28 thereof, will be out of the way of the parties. In that case,
the proceedings before the Registrar, the Award of the Arbitrators and the
execution proceedings taken out by the Society would all be adjudged to be
valid and binding upon the parties.
It is noteworthy that though the
determination of the appeal depends upon the terms of the agreement of March
26, 1952, it has not been included in the printed paper-book.
We have, therefore, to depend upon the extensive
quotations of the terms of the document as contained ;In the judgment under
appeal. It is common ground that all the relevant terms of the document,
beginning from the preamble to almost the end of it, have been quoted in
different parts in the judgment of the High Court, 970 and that these are
sufficient to give us a complete idea of the terms of the agreement. The
agreement has been described by the Society in the plaint filed before the
Arbitrators as 'a lease' and the appellant has been described as a 'tenant',
and if the case were to be decided on the so called admissions in the plaint,
the conclusion could easily be arrived at that the relationship between the
parties was that of landlord and tenant. But as pointed out by the High Court,
if we refer to the terms of the agreement itself, it will be abundantly clear
that on a proper construction of those terms, there was no executed lease
between the parties, but that it was only an executory contract entitling the
appellant to a sub-lease by the Society, which was itself a lessee, upon
payment of all the dues of the Society in respect of premium, principal and
interest, advanced towards the cost of construction of the premises and
fulfillment of all other conditions contained in the agreement. It consists of
14 clauses, as the judgment of the High Court says. It further appears from the
said judgment that the agreement starts by saying that it has been entered into
between the Society of the one part, and the appellant, hereinafter called the
'tenant' of the other part. In Part II of the preamble it is stated that the
'tenant' has applied to the Society for Plot No. 10 and for permission to erect
a dwelling house thereon and for a loan from the Society. The preamble also
mentions the fact that the Society itself had taken a lease of the entire open
piece of land, of which plot No. 10 was a part, for a term of 999 years from
March 17, 1950, at the annual rent of Rs. 6,264/-. Part III of the preamble
proceeds to say that the Society has already spent money on development of the
land and laying out roads, etc., and that it had been agreed between the
Society and the 'tenant' that the letter will pay a sum of Rs. 10,020/in
installments for transfer of Plot No. 10, and that the society shall grant a
loan to the 'tenant', not exceeding Rs. 16,980/for erecting 971 the structure
on that plot, to be advanced in installments and repayable in installments, as
hereinafter provided. Part V of the preamble is important in so far as it has
stated, in clear terms, that whenever the 'tenant' shall have repaid to the
Society all the outstanding dues, either in equated monthly installments or in
one lumpsum, at the option of the "tenant', the Society, with the consent
of the Government as mortgagee, shall grant to the 'tenant', a sublease of the
said Plot No. 10. free from all encumbrances for a term of 998 years commencing
from Match 17, 1950. Then follow the clauses of the agreement. The first clause
grants permission to the 'tenant' to enter upon the said plot for erecting a
dwelling house in accordance with the plan, elevation and estimates, previously
approved in writing by the Society. Then clause 3 follows, which is
substantially in the same terms as Part V of the preamble. It makes it
absolutely clear that only upon payment of all the outstanding dues of the
Society, in respect of premium for the plot and advance made for building the
residential house, along with interest accrued thereon, the Society shall grant
and the "tenant' shall accept a sub-lease of the said Plot No. 10. It may be
mentioned here that the mortgage in favour of the Government has reference to
the advance by the Government of a large sum of money to the Society with a
view to financing its building activities. For securing the payment of that
lumpsum, the entire area of land was mortgaged to the Government. Hence, it was
necessary to obtain the previous consent of the Government as mortgagee to the
execution of the sub-lease, contemplated by Part V of the preamble and clause 3
of the agreement. And then follow details of how the installments have to be
paid. Clause 8 of the agreement provides that the proposed sub-lease shall be
in the form now approved and signed by and on behalf of the parties, and when
the said principal money and interest have been fully paid, the necessary 972
document shall be executed by the Society. Further, clause 9 of the agreement
provides that as from the date of the agreement, the 'tenant' shall punctually
and regularly pay to the Society, without any deductions, firstly, a rent of
one rupee per annum, if demanded, secondly a proportionate amount of rent
payable to the superior landlord in respect of Plot No. 10, thirdly a
proportionate amount of assessment rates and taxes paid by the Society in
respect of Plot No.
10, fourthly, a sum equal to the amount spent
by the Society for insuring the building with reference to Plot No. 10, and.,
lastly, such further sum as may from time to time be certified by the Society
as the contribution by the occupier of Plot No. 10 towards the general expenses
of management, maintenance and development costs, including expenses incurred
on roads, sewers, drains and other amenities.
Clause 10 provides for the penalty in the
event of a default made by the 'tenant' in respect of any sums payable as
aforesaid. It says that in the event of a default by the "tenant' the
Society shall be entitled to serve notice in writing determining the agreement
and thereupon all installments and other moneys paid by the "tenant' under
the agreement shall be forfeited to the Society and shall become the absolute
property of the Society. And what follows is most important. it says that upon
the determination of the agreement, the 'tenant' shall forthwith surrender and
give to the Society vacant possession of the said premises.
Clause 11 makes reference to the fact that
premises were mortgaged to the Governor of Bombay to secure the loan advanced
to the Society by the Government of Bombay, and so long as the mortgage remains
subsisting, the Governor of Bombay shall be a necessary party to any such
sublease, to be hereinafter executed as aforesaid,, and no such sub-lease shall
be valid unless and until the same shall be executed by the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies on behalf of the Governor of 973 Bombay. And lastly,
clause 12 says that the "tenant' shall accept the title of the Society to
grant the said sub-lease without any questions or making any requisitions or
objections with regard to the title.
It was argued in the High Court though not in
the Trial Court, that on the terms aforesaid of the agreement, a present demise
of the land had been executed in favour of the appellant. This argument was
thought of in the High Court. In the lower Court, the Appellant's counsel
relied on s. 27-A of the Specific Relief Act, and it was submitted that the
defendant was entitled to defend his possession even though no lease had been
executed and registered, as required by law. The argument that the appellant
had become the 'tenant' of the land in question under the Society was thought
of because, in the agreement, he was referred to as the 'tenant'. In our
opinion, the High Court is entirely correct in taking the view that was a mere
description, or mis-description, of the appellant and that, in law, the
appellant could not claim that relationship of landlord and tenant had been
created by virtue of the agreement, the terms of which have been referred to in
some detail in order to bring out the weakness of the argument based upon the
description of the appellant as 'tenant'.
It is well-settled that the real nature of a
transaction has to be determined on a proper construction of the document as a
whole and not upon any particular words used in the document. The agreement
construed as a whole leaves no manner of doubt that it was an agreement between
the appellant and the Society to grant a sub-lease of Plot No.
10 only after the appellant had fulfilled his
part of the agreement, namely, had paid all the outstanding amounts due to the
Society in respect of the premium on the plot, the amounts advanced for 974
construction of the house and the interest accrued due until the entire amount
had been liquidated. The sub-lease would have to be executed by the Registrar
of the Co-operative Societies in token of the consent of the Government of
Bombay, which was a condition precedent to the validity of the sub-lease. The
agreement in question, therefore, evidences nothing more than an executory
contract that on the appellant fulfilling his obligations to the Society,
including the payment of the entire dues aforesaid, the Society would execute
the sub-lease in his favour subject to the consent of Government of Bombay, who
held the first mortgage on the entire land, including Plot No. 10.
It would thus appear that the entire
transaction was that practically a permanent lease had been taken by the
Society in respect of the open area, which was sub-divided into a number of
plots for building purposes. Those plots were to be allotted to the members of
the Society in order to enable them to erect their own residential houses, on
the terms that the Society would grant to the members such amounts by way of
loan as would cover the premium on the plot allotted to them and further sum
for building a house at a certain rate of interest. On the completion of the
house, the members would occupy the premises and start paying in monthly
installments the dues of the Society towards principal and interest until the
last installment will have been paid and all the outstanding dues of the
Society liquidated. Upon the happening of that event, the Society undertook to
execute in favour of the members sub-leases in respect of their respective
plots on which they had built their residential-houses. As the whole scheme of
the Society was financed by the Government of Bombay, the Government was
naturally a necessary party to the transaction. In the first instance, the
whole plot was mortgaged to the Government and that mortgage was to subsist
until the Government dues had been entirely liquidated.
Therefore, it became necessary that the
Registrar, as the agent of the Government, should be a necessary party to the
execution of the sub-leases in favour of the members to whom the several plots
had been allotted and the houses built on advance made by the Society out of the
funds made available to it by the Government.
It has not been contested on behalf of the
appellant that he did not pay any installment in respect of the transaction in
his favour. He had, therefore, not qualified for being granted a lease of Plot
No. 10, which had been allotted to him, under the building scheme of the
Society. Upon his default there was no option left to the Society but to
determine the agreement and to call upon him to surrender vacant possession of
the property. Hence, though he was characterised as a 'tenant' under the
agreement, it really meant the 'proposed tenant'. It was merely descriptive of
the appellant for the sake of convenience of expression. He would have become a
tenant only if he had paid all the dues, as aforesaid., of the Society and had
taken a sub-lease duly executed and registered in accordance with the terms of
the agreement, referred to above in detail. As he failed to do that, the laws
laid down in the Act, in order to realise the dues of the Society, had to be put
into operation. The Award was, therefore, a perfectly valid Award and there was
absolutely no justification for the plea taken by the appellant that he was a
tenant who was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act (Bombay Act
57 of 1947).
But the appellant contended that whatever
view we may take of the relation created by the document, by virtue of s. 28 of
Bombay Act 57 of 1947 the Committee of arbitrators appointed under the Bombay
Cooperative Societies Act 7 of 1925 had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
question 976 whether the appellant was a tenant of the premises of the society,
and reliance in that behalf was placed upon the judgment of this Court in
Babulal Bhuramal v. Nandram Shivram (1). In considering that argument attention
must first be invited to Section 28 of Bombay Act 57 of 1947, which in so far
as it is material, provides :
"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in any law and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim or for
any other reason, the suit or proceeding would not, but for this provision, be
within its jurisdiction, (a) in Greater Bombay, the Court of Small Causes,
Bombay;
(aa) x x x x (b) x x x x shall have
jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord,
and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to
which any of the provisions of this Part apply and to decide any application
made under this Act and to deal with any claim or question arising out of this
Act or any of its provisions and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2),
no other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit, proceeding
or application or to deal with such claim or question." It was urged that
as before the Committee of arbitrators the Society had claimed that the
appellant was a tenant of the Society, and relief for possession of the
premises was claimed on that footing', the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to
grant relief for possession. But there is no warrant for the submission that
the Society claimed before the arbitrators that (1) A.I.R. (1959) S.C. 677.
977 the appellant was a tenant and on that
basis claimed relief for possession. The pleadings before the arbitrators are
not included in the record, and on a reasonable reading of the award also no
such inference can be raised. Before the Committee of arbitrators the Society
had alleged that the appellant had made persistent defaults in repayment of the
loan due by him and had claimed a declaration that the appellant had ceased to
be a member of the Society, and an Order for delivery of vacant possession of
the premises belonging to the Society. It was, it appears, not alleged that any
relation of landlord and tenant had ever subsisted between the Society and the
appellant, and the plea of the appellant that he was a tenant in respect of the
premises in dispute could not affect the jurisdiction of the committee of
arbitrators. No useful purpose will therefore be served by entering upon a
discussion whether the provisions of s. 28 of Bombay Act 57 of 1947 override
the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act 7 of 1925, as was
suggested at the Bar.
Alternatively, it was contended that even if
the Society claimed to obtain an order for possession on some footing other
than the relationship of landlord and tenant, when the appellant raised the
contention that he was a tenant and the relationship of landlord and tenant was
put into issue, the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, alone was competent to
decide that question. Section 298 of Bombay Act 57 of 1947 excludes the
jurisdiction of all courts other than the Court of Small Causes to try any
suit, proceeding or application between a landlord and a tenant and to deal
with any claims 'or questions as are referred to in the section. Even if it be
granted that an arbitrator appointed under the Bombay Cooprative Societies Act
is a Court, on this question we do not deem it necessary to express any opinion
in order that his jurisdiction be excluded the proceeding before him must be
between landlord and 978 tenant, and relating to the recovery of rent or
possession of any premises to which the provisions of Part II of the Act apply.
The exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes arises only if the
person invoking the jurisdiction of the Court alleges that the other party is a
tenant or a landlord and the question is one which is referred to in s. 28.
Where the person so invoking does not set up the claim that the other party is
a tenant or a landlord the defendant is not entitled to displace the
jurisdiction of the ordinary court by an allegation that be stands in that
relation qua the other and on that ground the Court has no jurisdiction to try
the suit or proceeding or an application. There is nothing in the judgment of
this Court in Babulal Bhuramal'a Case (1), which supports the view that by
merely setting up a Plea that he is a tenant in respect of the premises in
dispute, the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts to decide a suit, proceeding
or application would be displaced. The facts which gave rise to the appeal
decided by this Court in Babulal's case (1), may be noticed.
The landlord filed in the Court of Small
Causes a suit in ejectment against the tenant, after terminating the tenancy,
and to that suit impleaded two persons who the landlord alleged had no right to
be on the premises. The Court held that those two persons were not lawful
sub-tenants and had no right to remain in the premises and passed a decree in
ejectment against the three defendants. The three defendants then commenced an
action in the Bombay City Court for a declaration that the first of them was a
tenant of the landlord, and the other two were lawful sub-tenants and were
entitled to the protection of Bombay Act 57 of 1947. The City Court held that
it had jurisdiction to try the suit, but dismissed it on the merits. The High
Court of Bombay confirmed the decree holding that the City Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but expressed no opinion on the merits.
This Court affirmed the view of the High Court. The Court in that case was
considering (1) A.1,R. (1958) S.C. 677.
979 the true effect of s. 28 of Bombay Act 57
of 1947 in the light of the averments made by the plaintiffs who alleged that
they were tenants and the denial by the defendant landlord of the tenancy set
up. The Court observed on p. 681 :
"The suit did not cease to be a suit
between a landlord and a tenant merely because the defendants denied the claim
of the plaintiffs.
Whether the plaintiffs were the tenants would
be a claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions which
had to be dealt with by the Court trying the suit. On a proper interpretation
of the provisions of s. 28 one suit contemplated in that section is not only a
suit between a landlord and a tenant in which that relationship is admitted but
also a suit in which it is claimed that the relationship of a landlord and a
tenant within the meaning Of the Act subsists between the parties." There
is nothing in these observations to support the plea that the jurisdiction of
the ordinary courts to try a suit or proceeding relating to recovery of
possession of any premises to which Part 11 of the Act applies is displaced as,
soon as the contesting party raises a plea about the relationship of a landlord
and a tenant.
In the result the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
