TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remedy under the provisions of the applicable rent legislation to evict the real tenant, the Central Government. Those proceedings will have to be decided on their own merits in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in the proceedings which have culminated in the judgment under review. The Respondents are seriously opposed to showing any indulgence to NTC in the garb of Review Petition by the Union of India. For, the review petition is hopelessly time barred as there is delay of 837 days coupled with conduct of Union of India in according approval to NTC for filing two successive undertakings in compliance of the direction of this Court. The objection appears to be attractive at the first blush but it cannot be taken forward, because of the legal fiction introduced by the amendment Act and giving retrospective effect to the event of vesting of the rights of the statutory tenant in respect of the suit property in the Central Government and also rendering the decree and order including the undertaking given by NTC unenforceable. As per the amended Section 3 of the 1995 Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1994, by operation of law the statutory or protected te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014 (for short Validation Act 2014 ), as a result of which the Union of India has filed an application for urging additional grounds in the Review Petition. As the issues to be decided in these proceedings are overlapping, we propose to deal with the same by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the property in question admeasuring 12118 square yards of land, bearing Plot No. 9 in Survey No. 73 of Lower Parel Division, N.M. Joshi Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai, originally belonged to one Damodar Tapidas and Dayabhai Tapidas. They executed a lease deed on 11th March, 1893 in favour of one Hope Mills Ltd. The demise was for 99 years to expire on 21st October, 1990. A structure was erected to house a cotton mill on the property. The original suit land owners sold and conveyed the said land to one Harichand Rupchand by a sale deed dated 22nd February, 1907. As per the Will of Harichand Rupchand, the property vested in a public charitable trust by the name of Seth Harichand Rupchand Charitable Trust (for short the Trust ). The Respondents are the present trustees of the said Trust. The leasehold rights then stood tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd final disposal of the suit the Defendants No. 2 their servants, agents and representatives be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from carrying out any further work of additions, alterations and/or erections of a permanent nature or committing acts of waste into or upon the suit lands viz., Plot No. 9, Cadastral Survey No. 73 of Lower Parel Division situated at Delisle Road, (Now known as N.M. Joshi Marg), Bombay-400011; (d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit that the Defendants No. 2 their servants, agents and representatives be restrained by an order and a permanent injunction of this Hon'ble Court from sub-letting and/or transferring their interest in the suit premises or from creating a leave and licence in respect thereof or from inducting a third party therein or from in any other manner parting with the possession of the suit lands; (e) that interim and ad-interim injunctions be granted in terms of prayer (c) and (d) above during the pendency and final disposal of this suit; (f) that a fit and proper person be appointed as a Commissioner to visit and inspect the suit premises being Plot No. 9, Cadastral Survey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in Schedule I item No. 4 of the said Ordinance 6 of 1995. E. that the Defendants No. 1 be also restrained from making any payment to the extent of Defendants No. 3, allege lease right, title, and interest in the suit property being Plot No. 9, Cadastral Survey No. 73, land admeasuring about 12,118 sq. yards with all buildings standing thereon, situated at Delisle Road, now known as N.M. Joshi Marg, Bombay-400011, fixed by the Defendants No. 1, and/or No. 2, as the Defendants No. 1 had only acquired statutory tenancy rights thereon. F. that it be declared that the Defendants No. 1 and 2 as the statutory tenant of the Plaintiffs have no right to deal with transfer, mortgage, sell and/or otherwise disposed off and/or induct any third party in the suit promises, being Plot No. 9, Cadastral Survey No. 73, land admeasuring about 12,118 sq. yards with all buildings standing thereon, situated at Delisle Road, now known as N.M. Joshi Marg, Bombay-400011. G. Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (d) to (f) be granted. H. Costs and any other and such reliefs be granted as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. This suit was eventually withdrawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne profit is finally determined by the Hon'ble Court; (f) interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (c), (d) and (e) above; (g) cost of this suit be provided for; and (h) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may required be granted. 7. The Appellant NTC filed its written statement denying the pleas taken by the Plaintiffs. The suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs (Trust) vide judgment and decree dated 5th August, 2006 by virtue of which the NTC was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs within four months. 8. Being aggrieved, the Appellant NTC preferred Appeal No. 627 of 2006 before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay on 13th November, 2006 which was dismissed by the appellate court by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 14th August, 2008. The Appellant preferred civil revision before the High Court of Bombay, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2009. 9. Being aggrieved, NTC assailed the aforementioned decision of the High Court before this Court by wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for sub-division of the said land so that the land of the Respondent as well as Applicant could be demarcated and sub-divided; (b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the Order dated 5.8.2006 of the Hon'ble Small Causes Court as regards the handling over of the building structure standing on the said suit land does not imply that the buildings are to be handed over free of cost or that the Respondent Trust is the owner therein; (c) That in any event this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to vary the said order of the Small Cases Court dated 05.8.2006 in-as-much-as it directs handing over of building in-as-much-as the said order is impossible of compliance since in the process of sub-division, the structures on the land of the Respondent as also the land of the Applicant will stand demolished; (d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Trust to pay to the Applicants the salvage value at the market rate/value of the demolished structure standing on the lease hold land to be handed over to the Respondent. (e) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit and also issue a direction permitting the Applicant to hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for extension of time by NTC are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and must be dismissed. The Respondents have also invited our attention to the interim orders passed by this Court in the present proceedings and would contend that the Commission's Report exposes the stand taken by NTC that the suit premises are still being used for its activities. 16. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the review Petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Naphade Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior Counsel appearing for NTC and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 17. From the judgment under review, it is seen that the main ground urged by Union of India in the review petition was pressed into service by NTC. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, the argument canvassed on behalf of NTC has been noted as under: 7. Shri Parag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the judgments and decrees of the courts below have to be set aside as none of the courts below has taken into consideration the effect of the provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 Appellant being neither the Government nor the government department cannot agitate that as it has been substituted in place of the Central Government, and acts merely as an agent of the Central Government, thus protection of the 1999 Act is available to it. The Appellant cannot be permitted to say that though all the rights vested in it but it merely remained the agent of the Central Government. Acceptance of such a submission would require interpreting the expression vesting as holding on behalf of some other person. Such a meaning cannot be given to the expression vesting . 43. It is a settled legal proposition that an agent cannot be sued where the principal is known. In the instant case, the Appellant has not taken the plea before either of the courts below. In view of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellant was under an obligation to take a specific plea to show that the suit was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statutory tenancy rights in relation to the suit property stood transferred to and vested absolutely in the Central Government. By the same provision, vide Sub-section (2) thereof, the Textile Undertaking which stood vested in the Central Government immediately thereafter stood transferred to and vested in the National Textile Corporation. That included subsisting statutory tenancy rights in respect of the suit property enjoyed by the concerned Textile Undertaking. However, Section 3 stands amended by virtue of the 2014 Act. That amendment by a legal fiction is deemed to have been inserted into the 1995 Act w.e.f. 1st January, 1994. The purport of the amended Sub-sections (3) and (4), inserted in Section 3 is that the leasehold rights of the Textile Undertaking would continue to remain vested in the Central Government and no Court could exercise jurisdiction to order divestment from the NTC of the property vested in it by the Central Government. In addition, the Amendment Act of 2014 has introduced Section 39 in the 1995 Act, titled as 'Validation'. We shall dilate on the efficacy of these provisions a little later. 21. Suffice it to observe that since Union of Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the Appellant, or when, being Respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. 24. The grounds for review are specified in Clause (1) noted above. The factual scenario in the present case is certainly not ascribable to discovery of new or important matters or evidence which was available or existing at the time of the decree but could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence. In the present case, the asseveration of the review Petitioner is about the mistake or error apparent on the face of the record committed by the Court and more particularly founded on the effect of the subsequent enactment of Validation Act 2014 which completely changes the status of the parties, namely, Union of India and NTC qua the suit property and bars the enforcement of any decree and including the undertaking given to the Court by NTC. 25. Ordinarily, enactment of a subsequent legislation by itself cannot be the basis to review the judgment already rendered by the Court. But the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the observations of Lord Asquith in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, 1952 AC 109 that If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it.... The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs . These observations indicate that the words charged under the decree in Section 4(2) of the 1952 Act were never there with the inevitable consequence that the only statutory requirement is whether the mortgaged property consists of estate which has been acquired under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 13. On November 27, 1962 when the matter was heard by the High Court, this amendment did not come into the statute-book. That is why the judgment-debtor made an application to bring it to the notice of the High Court that the law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties, besides the power of review Under Article 137 of the Constitution, it is open to this Court to exercise its plenary power Under Article 142 of the Constitution. 28. Reverting to the judgment under review, it is noticed that the provisions of the 1983 Act and 1995 Act have been generally adverted to while dealing with the plea taken by the Appellant NTC that it was in possession of the suit property merely as an agent of the Central Government. However, the Court declined to entertain that plea of NTC as it was not so specifically pleaded in the written statement. The Court then concluded that the Appellant NTC was neither the Government nor Government Department nor Agent of the Central Government in the context of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. That view has been taken in reference to the 1983 Act and the un-amended provisions of 1995 Act. Indeed, the review Petitioners would argue that on a fair reading of the un-amended provisions contained in 1995 Act and juxtaposed with the provisions of 1983 Act, the inescapable conclusion is that the leasehold rights continued to vest in the Central Government. However, we are not inclined to countenance this argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Textile Corporation subserves the interests of the general public and the land continue to be in possession of the said Corporation; AND WHEREAS various other textile undertakings have been nationalised from time to time and their assets vested absolutely in the Central Government and thereafter transferred to the National Textile Corporation Limited by the Central Government free from all encumbrances; AND WHEREAS after the nationalisation of the textile undertakings, a large sum of money have been invested with a view to making the said textile undertakings viable; AND WHEREAS the Central Government has taken initiative to revive certain sick undertakings including the National Textile Corporation under a revival scheme sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; AND WHEREAS it is necessary for the proper and effective implementation of the revival scheme and to protect the public investment in the acquired textile undertakings and to explicitly clarify the status of such vesting of the lease-hold rights in the Central Government. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no such proceedings shall fail only on account of the non-impleadment of that Government. 7. After Section 38 of the principal Act, the following Section shall be inserted, namely: 39. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority,- (a) the provisions of this Act, as amended by the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014, shall have and shall be deemed always to have effect for all purposes as if the provisions of this Act, as amended by the said Act, had been in force at all material times; (b) any lease-hold property divested from the National Textile Corporation to any person under the provisions of this Act, as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014, shall stand transferred to and vest or continue to vest, free from all encumbrances, in the National Textile Corporation in the same manner as it was vested in the National Textile Corporation before such divesting of that property under the provisions of this Act as if the provisions of this Act, as amended by the aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been inserted in the Principal Act. 32. The effect of insertion of Sub-sections (3) (4) in Section 3 of the Principal Act is that Section 3, as on 1st April, 1994, would read as follows: 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 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. (3) Notwithstanding the transfer and vesting of any textile undertaking to the National Textile Corporation by virtue of Sub-section (2), the lease-hold rights of the textile undertakings shall continue to remain vested in the Central Government on payment of lease-hold rents and shall be discharged, for and on behalf of that Government, by the National Textile Corporation as and when payment of such lease-hold rents or any amount becomes due and payable. (4) Subject to Sub-section (3), no court shall have jurisdiction to order divestment from the National Textil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be prescribed, an intimation to the Commissioner of such mortgage, charge, lien or other interest. (5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the mortgagee of any property referred to in Sub-section (2) or any other person holding any charge, lien or other interest in, or in-relation to, any such property' shall be entitled to claim, in accordance with his-rights and interests, payment of the mortgage maps or other-dues, in whole or in part, out of the amounts specified in relation to such property in the First Schedule, but no such mortgage, charge, lien or other interest shall be enforceable against any property which has vested in the Central Government. (6) If, on the appointed day, any suit, appeal or other proceeding of whatever nature in relation to any property which has vested in the Central Government Under Section 3, instituted or preferred by or against the textile company is pending, the same shall not abate, be discontinued or be, in any way, prejudicially affected by reason of the transfer of the textile undertakings or of anything contained in this act, but the suit, appeal or other proceeding may be continued, prosecuted or enforced by or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1994, continued to remain vested in the Central Government. That right was never transferred to NTC by operation of law. It pre-supposes that only the other rights of the Textile Undertaking as vested in the Central Government in terms of Sub-section (1), stood transferred to and vested in the NTC Under Sub-section (2). 34. In the present case, the management of Podar Mills was taken over by the Central Government in exercise of powers under 1983 Act whereafter the lease in respect of the suit property expired on 21st October, 1990. On expiry of the lease term, indisputably, Podar Mills became the protected tenant or statutory tenant within the purview of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 1947 Act ). Section 5(11) of the said Act defines the term tenant , as under: (11) tenant means any person by whom or any whose account rent is payable for any premises and includes,- (a) such sub-tenants and other persons as have derived title under a tenant before the 1st day of February 1973; (aa) any person to whom interest in premises, has been assigned or transferred as permitted or deemed to be permitted, Under Section 15; (b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 25; (c) a person to whom interest in premises has been assigned or transferred as permitted Under Section 26; (d) in relation to any premises, when the tenant dies, whether the death occurred before or after the commencement of this Act, any member of the tenant's family, who,- (i) where they are let for residence, is residing, or (ii) where they are let for education, business, trade or storage, is using the premises for any such purpose, with the tenant at the time of his death, or, in the absence of such member, any heir of the deceased tenant, as may be decided in the absence of agreement, by the court. Explanation.- The provisions of this Clause for transmission of tenancy shall not be restricted to the death of the original tenant, but shall apply even on the death of any subsequent tenant, who becomes tenant under these provisions on the death of the last preceding tenant. 35. Being a protected or statutory tenant, Podar Mills could be dispossessed from the suit premises by the Trust only on the grounds permissible under that Act by instituting eviction proceedings before the competent Rent Court having exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act shall not apply - (a) to any premises belonging to the Government or a local authority or apply as against the Government to any tenancy, licence or other like relationship created by a grant from or a licence given by the Government in respect of premises requisitioned or taken on lease or on licence by the Government, including any premises taken on behalf of the Government on the basis of tenancy or of licence or other like relationship by, or in the name of any officer subordinate to the Government authorised in this behalf, but it shall apply in respect of premises let, or given on licence, to the Government or a local authority or taken on behalf of the Government on such basis by, or in the name of, such officer; (b) to any premises let or sub-let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid up share capital of more than rupee one crore or more. Explanation. - For the purpose of this Clause the expression bank means,- (i) the State Bank of India consti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the suit property w.e.f. 1st April, 1994, the fact that the Appellant NTC was carrying on its activities therein would not extricate the landlord (Trust) from initiating eviction proceedings against the real tenant, namely, the Central Government or Union of India; and such eviction proceedings could be maintained only before the jurisdictional Rent Court having exclusive jurisdiction to decide any dispute between the landlord and tenant. The present suit, however, came to be filed only against the Appellant NTC and that too before the jurisdictional civil court under the Transfer of Property Act. It is obvious that the Trust acted on the legal advice and instituted the present suit, despite having filed two suits (namely, TER Suit 680/1568 of 1995 and RAD Suit 955/1997) in earlier point of time, for possession of the suit property, in both of which Union of India was made Party-Defendant. But those suits were eventually dismissed for non-prosecution and withdrawn, respectively, during the pendency of the subject suit, for reasons best known to the Trust. 37. To put it differently, the present suit instituted by the Trust under the provisions of the Transfer of Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest of the owner of the Textile Undertaking generally. That encompasses all the rights as are spelt out in Section 4(1) of the Act. One such right can be leasehold rights. Concededly, the expression leasehold rights mentioned in the 1995 Act must be construed as referring to the rights under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as well as under the applicable Rent Act recognizing tenancy rights without exception. The expression leasehold rights has not been defined in the 1983 Act or in the 1995 Act or for that matter, in the concerned Rent Act. That expression can be discerned from the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The expression lease is defined in Section 105 thereof which reads thus: 105. Lease defined.- A lease of immoveable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. Lessor, lessee, premium and rent defined.- the transferor is called the lesso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so conveyed. 5- A contact by which the rightful possessor of personal property conveys the right to use that property in exchange for consideration. [Cases: Bailment-1.] Leasehold, n. (18c) A tenant's possessory estate in land or premises, the four types being the tenancy for years, the periodic tenancy, the tenancy at will, and the tenancy at sufferance. Although a leasehold has some of the characteristics of real property, it has historically been classified as a chattel real. - Also termed leasehold estate; leasehold interest. See TENANCY. Cf. FREEHOLD. [Cases: Landlord and Tenant-70, 113, 117.] Leasehold interest. (18c) 1- LEASEHOLD; esp. for purposes of eminent domain, the lessee's interest in the lease itself, measured by difference between the total remaining rent and the rent the lessee would pay for similar space for the same period. [Cases: Eminent Domain -147] 2- Lessor's or lessee's interest under a lease contract.[Cases: Bailment-7] 3. WORKING INTEREST. [Cases: Landlord and Tenant-20.] Tenancy. (16c) 1. The possession or occupancy of land under a lease; a leasehold interest in real estate. 2. The period of such possession or occupancy. See E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old rights in 1995 Act, obviously, must receive wider meaning so as to encompass tenancy rights flowing from the applicable Rent Act. For, the expression tenancy rights accruing under the Rent Act is analogous to and interchangeable with the expression leasehold rights . There is no reason to exclude the expression statutory right so enjoyed by the owners of the Textile Undertaking from the expression leasehold rights referred to in Sub-section (3), so long as it has not been so expressly excluded. 42. Considering the legislative intent for enacting the 1995 Act and the Validation Act 2014 also, it is not possible to give a restricted meaning to the expression leasehold rights occurring in Sub-section (3) of Section 3, as amended, or elsewhere in the said enactment. Thus, the expression leasehold rights in 1995 Act must include tenancy rights flowing from the provisions of the applicable rent legislation. Any other interpretation would be doing violence to the legislative intent and be a pedantic approach. 43. According to the Respondents, the status of Podar Mills and resultantly, of the Union of India is that of a tenant at sufferance. We have already adverted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the rights enjoyed by Podar Mills Ltd. after determination of lease period was that of a protected or statutory tenant within the meaning of the rent legislation (1947 Act). That right had been transferred to and vested in the Central Government by virtue of Section 3(1) of the 1995 Act and continues to so vest in it in terms of Section 3(3) which had come into force w.e.f. 1st April, 1994 and deemed always to have effect for all purposes as if it had been in force at all material times. 46. Relying on the dictum in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, it was contended that Podar Mills having continued in occupation of the suit property only by virtue of the protection of the then applicable Rent Act, namely, the 1947 Act, even after 21st October, 1990, it had no subsisting right whatsoever. Reliance is placed on paragraph Nos. 13 and 15 of the said decision, which read thus: 13. We are also unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant-company that the leasehold interest of the Appellant-company in premises leased out to it is property for the purpose of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(f). In the case of a statutory tenant, the relationship is not governed by contract. The prohibition against assignment and transfer is, therefore, absolute and the interest of a statutory tenant can neither be assigned nor transferred. This means that the interest of the statutory tenant in the premises in his occupation, as governed by the Karnataka Rent Control Act is a limited interest which enables the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or father or mother of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the premises as a member of the tenant's family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, to inherit the interest of the tenant on his death. The said interest of the tenant is, however, not assignable or transferable and, therefore, the interest of a company which is continuing in occupation of the premises as a statutory tenant by virtue of the protection conferred by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, cannot be regarded as property of the company for the purpose of Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act and for that reason also the provisions of Section 22(1) were not attracte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... madilal case and Ors. in the same line related primarily to the question of heritable interest in the premises of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant who was in occupation as statutory tenant. Pointing out that the concept of statutory tenancy under the English Rent Acts and under Indian statutes like the one with which we are concerned rests on different foundations, it was held that the statutory tenant had a heritable interest in the premises which was not merely a personal interest but an interest in the estate like that of a contractual tenant. On this conclusion, the right of legal representatives of the statutory tenant to protect the possession and prosecute the appeal against eviction order was upheld. The main question for decision in Damadilal case was the heritable nature of the statutory tenancy and it was in this context that the terms and conditions of a statutory tenancy were held to be the same as those of the contractual tenancy preceding it. No question arose in Damadilal case of the right of a statutory tenant to create a sub-tenancy after replacement of the contractual tenancy with the statutory tenancy. The observations made and the decision rende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r eviction within the meaning of Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. On the finding that the sub-tenant had been inducted during the period of contractual tenancy on the basis of the written consent for sub-letting given by the landlord, the sub-letting did not become unlawful merely because the contractual tenancy of the tenant came to an end and the protection against eviction to the tenant as a statutory tenant also enured to the benefit of the lawful sub-tenant recognised by the statute. It was held as under: (SCC p. 271, paras 26 27) Sub-letting lawfully done with the written consent of the landlord does not become unlawful merely on the ground that the contractual tenancy has come to an end. Subletting to constitute a valid ground for eviction must be without the consent in writing of the landlord at the time when the tenant sublets any portion to the sub-tenant. A sub-letting by the tenant with the consent in writing of the landlord does not become unlawful on the expiry of the contractual tenancy of the tenant, unless there is any fresh sub-letting by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord. Mere continuance in possession of a sub-tenant lawfully indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in Mahabir Prasad case which, in our opinion, is in no way contrary to the decisions starting with Damadilal case, the observations wherein are in the context of heritability of the statutory tenancy. In fact, it is rightly not even contended by Dr Chitale that the decision in Mahabir Prasad case runs counter to Damadilal case and other decisions following them. This is sufficient to indicate that the Appellants' contention is untenable. We fail to understand as to how the principle expounded in the reported decision will be of any avail to the Respondents (Trust). As already noted, it is not a case of subletting by the statutory tenant (Podar Mills Ltd.) but instead a case of involuntary transfer and vesting of rights and interest of the statutory or protected tenant in respect of the suit property in the Central Government by operation of law. In any case, if the Trust intends to proceed against the statutory tenant on the ground of unlawful subletting or such other ground, it will be obliged to initiate eviction proceedings against the Union of India before the competent jurisdictional Rent Court on that count. In the present case, the subject suit for eviction has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that date and continue to remain so, and could be evicted only in the manner prescribed by the concerned rent legislation. The decree passed against NTC is on the assumption that the 1999 Act had no application to the suit property as the right had vested in NTC - which did not enjoy the protection of the 1999 Act. Resultantly, it must follow that the subject suit and the proceedings arising from or in relation thereto cannot proceed in law and moreso because NTC is not the real tenant. Further, as the tenancy rights in relation to the suit property continue to vest in the Central Government by operation of law, the provisions of the 1999 Act will be attracted, warranting suit for eviction to be filed against the Union of India before the jurisdictional Rent Court having exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the landlord and tenant. We must hasten to add that the validity of the provisions of the Validation Act 2014 is not put in issue in the present proceedings and we do not intend to deal with the same. All questions in that behalf are kept open. 50. Reliance was placed on State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2014) 12 SCC 696, (in paragraph Nos. 127 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with law, without being influenced by any observation made in the proceedings which have culminated in the judgment under review. 52. Considering the above, we are not inclined to continue with the contempt proceeding or for that matter application for extension of time filed by NTC. As a result, the dictum of this Court in T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 516, (Paragraph Nos. 9 to 22.), Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram and Ors. (1989) Supp. (2) SCC 418 (Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6) and Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 259 (Paragraph 11), will be of no avail. 53. The Respondents are seriously opposed to showing any indulgence to NTC in the garb of Review Petition by the Union of India. For, the review petition is hopelessly time barred as there is delay of 837 days coupled with conduct of Union of India in according approval to NTC for filing two successive undertakings in compliance of the direction of this Court. The objection appears to be attractive at the first blush but it cannot be taken forward, because of the legal fiction introduced by the amendment Act and giving retrospective effect to the event of vesting of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
