Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The plaintiffs are seeking "vacant possession of the immovable property mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint and more particularly, described in Exhibit 'A' to the plaint". In both, what is mentioned or-described is the suit land and not the buildings standing thereon. The plaintiffs however, contend that they have become entitled to get possession of the buildings and structures. The plaintiffs have therefore, also prayed for appointment of an architect for making valuation of the structures and buildings as mentioned in Clause 2(m) of the lease deed. As per the said clause the "lessors shall pay to the lessees compensation as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties". Now the ground for claiming possession is that the defendants have committed a breach of their obligation under the lease in two ways. First that they have failed and neglected to pay rent for the months of April, May and June 1976 and second that they have neglected to insure the buildings constructed on the suit land against loss or damage by fire. It will be proper to consider these two breaches separately.

18. The second breach alleged against the defendants is that they failed and neglected to insure the buildings constructed on the suit land against loss or damage by fire. Clause 2(h) of the lease deed reads as under :

h) To insure the building or buildings constructed on the said premises (excluding the foundation and plinth to their full insurable value), against loss or damage by fire in an insurance office of repute in Bombay to be approved of by the lessors, in the joint names of the lessees and the lessors or otherwise as may be necessary, and to produce to the lessors the Insurance Policy and the receipt of payment of premia and in case of destruction or damage, to lay out the insurance moneys in re-building or reinstating the building or buildings destroyed or damaged, making up themselves the deficiency therein.