TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uit premises admeasuring 12118 sq. yds. bearing plot no. 9 in Survey No. 73 of Lower Parel Division, N.M. Joshi Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400 011, in favour of a company named Hope Mills Limited for a period of 99 years commencing from 22.10.1891. The lease so executed was to expire on 21.10.1990. B. The original owners transferred and conveyed the suit property in favour of one Harichand Roopchand and Ratan Bai on 22.2.1907. Thereafter, the suit property came to be vested in and owned by a public charitable trust, namely, Harichand Roopchand Charity Trust (hereinafter called as `Trust'). C. The leasehold rights in respect of suit property stood transferred to Prospect Mills Ltd. and, thereafter to Diamond Spinning Weaving Co. Pvt. Ltd. and, ultimately, vide a lease indenture dated 25.10. 1926 to Toyo Poddar Cotton Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called the `Poddar Mills'). D. The Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983 (hereinafter called `the Act 1983') was enacted by the Parliament in order to take over the management of 13 textile undertakings including the Poddar Mills pending their nationalisation. The lease granted in favour of Poddar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenancy rights stood vested absolutely in the Central Government on commencement of the Act 1995 by operation of law. The appellant stepped in the shoes of the Central Government merely as an agent, thus, the Central Government remained the tenant. The Central Government continued to be a tenant in the suit premises and thus, would be protected in terms of Section 3(1) (a) of the Act 1999 being premises let out to the Government. The courts below failed to consider this vital legal issue. The suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that it is not permissible for the court to travel beyond the pleadings. No evidence can be led on an issue in respect of which proper pleadings have not been taken. Findings of fact cannot be recorded on a issue on facts in respect of which no factual foundation has been laid. The appellant had never raised the issue before the courts below that the Central Government was the tenant and it was holding the premises merely as an agent. In the written statement filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1953 SC 235; State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., AIR 2010 SC 1299; and Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, AIR 2011 SC 1127). 8. In Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1242, this Court held as under: ...... in the absence of pleadings, evidence if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered...... no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. Similar view has been reiterated in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal Ors., AIR 2009 SC 1103. 9. In Kashi Nath (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Jaganath, (2003) 8 SCC 740, this Court held that where the evidence is not in line of the pleadings and is at variance with it, the said evidence cannot be looked into or relied upon. Same remain the object for framing the issues under Order XIV CPC and the court should not decide a suit on a matter/point on which no issue has been framed. (Vide: Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 693; and Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra). 10. In Syed and Company Ors. v. State of Jam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment includes, both the Central Government as well as the State Government. The government is impersonal in character having three independent functionaries as its branches. It performs regal and sovereign functions, which are not alienable to any other person, e.g. defence, security, currency etc. Government means a group of people responsible for governing the country. It consists of the activities, methods and principles involved in governing a country or other political unit. The Government is a body that governs and exercises control by issuing directions and is not governed by any other agency. It is a body politic that formulates policies and the laws by which a civil society is controlled. It is a political concept formulated to rule the nation. It is not a profit and loss establishment. From the legal point of view, government may be described as the exercise of certain powers and the performance of certain duties by public authorities or officers, together with certain private persons or corporations exercising public functions. Thus, Government Department means something purely fundamental, i.e. relating to a particular government or to the practice of governing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment does not figure in any litigation to which it is a party. (See also: The State of Bihar v. The Union of India Anr., AIR 1970 SC 1446; S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation Delhi Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1395; K. Jayamohan v. State of Kerala Anr., (1997) 5 SCC 170; Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. State of Kerala Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2275; Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar Anr., AIR 1998 SC 1945; and State through Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kulwant Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1599). 19. In Food Corporation of India v. Municipal Committee, Jalalabad Anr., AIR 1999 SC 2573, this Court considered the case of imposition of house tax under the provisions of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1911 and held that Food Corporation of India was a Government Company and not a Government Department - a distinct entity from Central Government. Thus, was not entitled to exemption from tax under Article 285 of the Constitution. While deciding the said case, reliance had been placed by the Court on its earlier judgment in M/s. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., etc. etc. v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh Ors., etc. etc., AIR 1999 SC 1734. 20. In A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. 22. Thus, if the aforesaid settled legal principles are applied to the appellant, it becomes evident that appellant is neither the government nor the department of the government, but a Government Company. Appellant cannot identify itself with the Central Government. The submission made by Mr. Tripathi that appellant is merely an agent of the Central Government is not worth consideration at all for the simple reason that rights vested in the appellant stood crystallised after being transferred by the Central Government. Appellant is being controlled by the provisions of the Act 1995 and not by the Central Government. Whereas an agent is merely an extended hand of the principal and cannot claim independent rights. 23. Section 3 (1) (a) (b) provide for exemption from the application of the Act 1999. This Court examined the validity of provisions of Section 3(1) (a) and (b) of the Act 1999 in Saraswat Coop. Bank Ltd. Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 520 and came to the conclusion that it was within the exclusive domain of the legislature to decide which section of tenants should be afforded protection on the basis of economic criteria. If a partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Leelabai Gajanan Pansare (supra) so far as the issue of exemption to the Act 1999 is concerned. 26. Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act 1995 reads as under: 3(1) On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to every textile undertaking shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government. (2) Every textile undertaking which stands vested in the Central Government by virtue of sub-section (1), shall immediately after it has so vested, stand transferred to, and vested in, the National Textile Corporation. (Emphasis added) The aforesaid provisions require construction giving proper meaning to the expression `vesting'. 27. `Vesting' means having obtained an absolute and indefeasible right. It refers to and is used for transfer or conveyance. `Vesting' in the general sense, means vesting in possession. However, `Vesting' does not necessarily and always means possession but includes vesting of interest as well. `Vesting' may mean vesting in title, vesting in possession or vesting in a limited sense, as indicated in the context in which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act 1983. The First Schedule included Poddar Mills at Sl. No.9 and Poddar Mills had been paid compensation to the tune of ₹ 7,46,30,000. Nothing has been paid so far as respondent No.1 is concerned. Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act 1995 provides that any suit, appeal or other proceedings of whatever nature in relation to any property which had vested in the Central Government under Section 3 on the appointed day, instituted or preferred by or against the textile company is pending, the same shall not abate or adversely affect the rights of the parties by reason of the transfer of textile undertaking. Thus, the commencement of the Act 1995 does not really affect even the pending cases. In view thereof, it is beyond our imagination as how the Act 1995 would prejudice the cause of the respondents in the proceedings which arose subsequent to the commencement of this Act. 29. It is not permissible for the appellant to canvass that the Central Government has any concern so far as the tenancy rights are concerned. Right vested in the Central Government stood transferred and vested in the appellant. Both are separate legal entities and are not synonymous. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
