He pointed out that the N.R.C. Ltd. has been a tenant of
this property since about 1946. Subsequently, the building
wherein its premises are situated, was taken over by the
Life Insurance Corporation, and thereafter by the Central
Bank of India. In view of this judgment, the relationship
between the Central Bank of India and the N.R.C. Ltd. as
landlord and tenant will continue to be governed under the
Bombay Rent Act and now under The Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999.
In paragraph 49 of Dr. Pophale’s case, this Court discussed
the inter relation between Article 254(1) and 254 (2) of
the Constitution, and specifically pointed out that the
Government and the statutory corporations were taken out of
the protective umbrella when the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act was passed, and so they would be covered under the
Public Premises Act, but of course from the date when the
Act comes into force or from the date when the premises
belong to the concerned Government corporation. What
applies to the landlord, equally applies to the tenants.
7. As far as the present action initiated by the
Central Bank of India is concerned, the notice to evict was
issued on 26th June, 2007, much after the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act came into force on 31.3.2000. This Act clearly
lays down that it shall not apply to Public Ltd. Companies
having a paid up share capital of Rs. One Crore or more.
Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act reads as follows:-
3 Exemption
(1) This act shall not apply
(a) ........
(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 rupees one crore or more."
There is no dispute that the respondent N.R.C.
Ltd. is a company having a paid up share capital of more
than rupees one crore. That being so, the protective
umbrella of the State Rent Control Act which was available
to the N.R.C. Ltd. would not be available to it beyond
31.3.2000. That being so, the provisions of Public
Premises Act would clearly apply to these premise on or
after 31.3.2000 for the purposes of eviction of
unauthorised occupants and therefore, the action initiated
by the Central Bank of India could not be faulted with.
8. Mr. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the N.R.C. Ltd. has drawn our attention to
the fact that the company’s affairs are before the BIFR,
and it also had correspondence with the trade union
representing the employees, but the employees union was not
ready to help in any manner. Those are different aspects,
and as pointed out by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel, the financial difficulties of N.R.C. Ltd. were
brought to the notice of this Court by filing the I.A.No.2
of 2014 which was not pressed, and that being so, the issue
cannot be allowed to be re-agitated. A tenant or an
occupant cannot be permitted to be on the premises of the
landlord without paying the rent, or the occupation
charges, which is what N.R.C. Ltd. is attempting to do.
9. This being the position, in our view, the Central
Bank will be entitled to take back the possession of the
concerned premises with respect to which the order of
eviction has been passed, and we permit it to resume the
same by taking the help of police if required.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 147 OF 2014
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No.24874/2013
Central Bank of India V N.R.C. Limited
Citation;2014(3) ALLMR 401 SC
Coram:
H.L.GOKHALE, J.,[KURIAN JOSEPH ]
This contempt petition makes a grievance that the
respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. has not complied with the order
dated 19th August, 2013 passed by this Court while
dismissing their SLP (C) No.24874 of 2013, and an action be
taken against them for committing contempt of the above
order passed by this Court. The said order dismissed the
SLP filed by the respondent, challenging their eviction
from the premises occupied by them. However, considering
the number of employees who were engaged in their
registered office situated at that place, they were granted
time till the end of December, 2014 to vacate the premises,
subject to filing the usual undertaking in the Registry of
this Court within four weeks from that date, stating that
the petitioner will not create any third party rights, all
the mesne profits will be paid in the meanwhile, and will
peacefully vacate the premises concerned at the end of
December, 2014.
2. That special leave petition was filed to
challenge the judgment dated 10th May, 2013 of the High
Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.2898/2011 and L.P.A.
No.174 of 2012 under which the order passed by the Estate
Officer of the appellant, and confirmed by the City Civil
Court was left undisturbed. The order dated 19th August,
2013 required the respondent to file the necessary
undertaking, but it was not filed, and the mesne profits as
required have also not been paid. It is also pointed out
that subsequently one more I.A., being I.A. No.2 of 2014,
was taken out by the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. to be relieved
of this undertaking, and that I.A. was not pressed, and the
same came to be dismissed by this Court by its order dated
7th October, 2013.
3. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the petitioner Central Bank of India points
out that the financial difficulties of the respondent were
placed on record in that I.A. and subsequently the same has
been withdrawn. That being so, there was no reason for the
respondent not to file the undertaking and not to pay the
mesne profits as required. He has drawn our attention to
two judgments of this Court in almost similar
circumstances. One was the case of Ram Pyari (Smt.) & Ors.
vs. Jagdish Lal reported in 1992 (1) SCC 157, and the other
was that of Santanu Chaudhuri vs. Subir Ghosh reported in
2007 (10) SCC 253. In both these matters undertakings to
vacate were given but they were not complied with, and
therefore the contempt petition was filed. This Court in
both these matters noted that since undertaking was not
given, there could not be any contempt as such, but the
order passed by this Court had to be complied with, and
therefore permitted the petitioners to take the help of
police to take back the possession of the concerned
premises.
4. Mr. T.R. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel,
appeared for the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. He relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Gobind Ram
reported in 1990 (1) SCC 193 to submit that the Estate
Officer was coram non judice, since according to him he did
not have jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction. He
referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director, Health Services,
Haryana reported in 2013 (10) SCC 136 to submit that the
question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. He
has drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by this
Court in C.A.No.1970 of 2014 on 11th February, 2014 in the
case of Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. and Its Estate Officer to which one of us (H.L.
Gokhale,J.) was a party. Mr. Andhiyarujina has submitted
that this judgment clearly lays down that the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971
will not apply prior to the Act coming into force, that is
prior to 16th September, 1958. He has drawn our attention
to various paragraphs of this judgment and submitted that
though this judgment has been rendered subsequent to the
dismissal of the present special leave petition, inasmuch
as the law is now clarified, the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd.
cannot be said to be an unauthorized occupant, nor can the
action under the Public Premises Act be said to be valid.
He pointed out that the N.R.C. Ltd. has been a tenant of
this property since about 1946. Subsequently, the building
wherein its premises are situated, was taken over by the
Life Insurance Corporation, and thereafter by the Central
Bank of India. In view of this judgment, the relationship
between the Central Bank of India and the N.R.C. Ltd. as
landlord and tenant will continue to be governed under the
Bombay Rent Act and now under The Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999.
5. Inasmuch as this submission has been raised by
Mr. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel, we would like to
point out that this judgment in Dr. Pophale’s case
clarifies the legal position as laid down by this Court
earlier in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. vs.
Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in 1990 (4) SCC 406.
That judgment has held that the Public Premises Act and the
State Rent Control Acts were both referable to the
concurrent list, and would be valid in their spheres, but
Public Premises Act will prevail to the extent of any
repugnancy. Therefore, this Court held earlier in the case
of Banatwala and Company vs. Life Insurance Corporation of
India & Anr. reported in 2011 (13) SCC 446 that to the
extent the Public Premises Act covers the relationship
between the landlord and the tenant, namely, for eviction
of unauthorized occupants and for recovery of arrears of
rent, the Public Premises Act will apply and not in other
aspects of their relationship. This is why in Banatwala's
case (supra) it was held that the application for the
maintenance of the premises would lie to the Court of Small
Causes in Mumbai, and it will not be hit by the provisions
of the Public Premises Act. The issue in Dr. Suhas H.
Pophale's case was as to when the Public Premises Act will
apply, and it was laid down that the Act will not apply
prior to the Act coming into force, and until the premises
concerned belonged to the concerned public corporation,
whichever is the later date. This was on the footing that
if there are any welfare provisions in the statutes, the
legislature cannot be intended to have taken them away if
there is no repugnancy.
6. In Dr. Suhas H. Pophale's case the judgment of
this Court in the case of Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh,
Nagpur vs. The Model Mills, Nagpur and Anr. reported in AIR
1984 S.C. 1813 was specifically referred in paragraph No.29
to point out that if there is any welfare provision in a
statute it cannot be taken away. This was in the context
of the Payment of Bonus Act. It was also held that the
judgment in M/s Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs. Life
Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. reported in 1980 (4)
SCC 435 did not consider the issue of protection in a
welfare legislation to the tenant, prior to the premises
becoming public premises, and the issue of
retrospectivity. So also these issues were not in
consideration in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (supra).
In paragraph 49 of Dr. Pophale’s case, this Court discussed
the inter relation between Article 254(1) and 254 (2) of
the Constitution, and specifically pointed out that the
Government and the statutory corporations were taken out of
the protective umbrella when the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act was passed, and so they would be covered under the
Public Premises Act, but of course from the date when the
Act comes into force or from the date when the premises
belong to the concerned Government corporation. What
applies to the landlord, equally applies to the tenants.
7. As far as the present action initiated by the
Central Bank of India is concerned, the notice to evict was
issued on 26th June, 2007, much after the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act came into force on 31.3.2000. This Act clearly
lays down that it shall not apply to Public Ltd. Companies
having a paid up share capital of Rs. One Crore or more.
Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act reads as follows:-
3 Exemption
(1) This act shall not apply
(a) ........
(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 rupees one crore or more."
There is no dispute that the respondent N.R.C.
Ltd. is a company having a paid up share capital of more
than rupees one crore. That being so, the protective
umbrella of the State Rent Control Act which was available
to the N.R.C. Ltd. would not be available to it beyond
31.3.2000. That being so, the provisions of Public
Premises Act would clearly apply to these premise on or
after 31.3.2000 for the purposes of eviction of
unauthorised occupants and therefore, the action initiated
by the Central Bank of India could not be faulted with.
8. Mr. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the N.R.C. Ltd. has drawn our attention to
the fact that the company’s affairs are before the BIFR,
and it also had correspondence with the trade union
representing the employees, but the employees union was not
ready to help in any manner. Those are different aspects,
and as pointed out by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel, the financial difficulties of N.R.C. Ltd. were
brought to the notice of this Court by filing the I.A.No.2
of 2014 which was not pressed, and that being so, the issue
cannot be allowed to be re-agitated. A tenant or an
occupant cannot be permitted to be on the premises of the
landlord without paying the rent, or the occupation
charges, which is what N.R.C. Ltd. is attempting to do.
9. This being the position, in our view, the Central
Bank will be entitled to take back the possession of the
concerned premises with respect to which the order of
eviction has been passed, and we permit it to resume the
same by taking the help of police if required.
The contempt petition is allowed in the above
terms.
...................J.
[H.L. GOKHALE ]
...................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH ]
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 05, 2014.
Print Page
this property since about 1946. Subsequently, the building
wherein its premises are situated, was taken over by the
Life Insurance Corporation, and thereafter by the Central
Bank of India. In view of this judgment, the relationship
between the Central Bank of India and the N.R.C. Ltd. as
landlord and tenant will continue to be governed under the
Bombay Rent Act and now under The Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999.
In paragraph 49 of Dr. Pophale’s case, this Court discussed
the inter relation between Article 254(1) and 254 (2) of
the Constitution, and specifically pointed out that the
Government and the statutory corporations were taken out of
the protective umbrella when the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act was passed, and so they would be covered under the
Public Premises Act, but of course from the date when the
Act comes into force or from the date when the premises
belong to the concerned Government corporation. What
applies to the landlord, equally applies to the tenants.
7. As far as the present action initiated by the
Central Bank of India is concerned, the notice to evict was
issued on 26th June, 2007, much after the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act came into force on 31.3.2000. This Act clearly
lays down that it shall not apply to Public Ltd. Companies
having a paid up share capital of Rs. One Crore or more.
Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act reads as follows:-
3 Exemption
(1) This act shall not apply
(a) ........
(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 rupees one crore or more."
There is no dispute that the respondent N.R.C.
Ltd. is a company having a paid up share capital of more
than rupees one crore. That being so, the protective
umbrella of the State Rent Control Act which was available
to the N.R.C. Ltd. would not be available to it beyond
31.3.2000. That being so, the provisions of Public
Premises Act would clearly apply to these premise on or
after 31.3.2000 for the purposes of eviction of
unauthorised occupants and therefore, the action initiated
by the Central Bank of India could not be faulted with.
8. Mr. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the N.R.C. Ltd. has drawn our attention to
the fact that the company’s affairs are before the BIFR,
and it also had correspondence with the trade union
representing the employees, but the employees union was not
ready to help in any manner. Those are different aspects,
and as pointed out by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel, the financial difficulties of N.R.C. Ltd. were
brought to the notice of this Court by filing the I.A.No.2
of 2014 which was not pressed, and that being so, the issue
cannot be allowed to be re-agitated. A tenant or an
occupant cannot be permitted to be on the premises of the
landlord without paying the rent, or the occupation
charges, which is what N.R.C. Ltd. is attempting to do.
9. This being the position, in our view, the Central
Bank will be entitled to take back the possession of the
concerned premises with respect to which the order of
eviction has been passed, and we permit it to resume the
same by taking the help of police if required.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 147 OF 2014
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No.24874/2013
Central Bank of India V N.R.C. Limited
Citation;2014(3) ALLMR 401 SC
Coram:
H.L.GOKHALE, J.,[KURIAN JOSEPH ]
This contempt petition makes a grievance that the
respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. has not complied with the order
dated 19th August, 2013 passed by this Court while
dismissing their SLP (C) No.24874 of 2013, and an action be
taken against them for committing contempt of the above
order passed by this Court. The said order dismissed the
SLP filed by the respondent, challenging their eviction
from the premises occupied by them. However, considering
the number of employees who were engaged in their
registered office situated at that place, they were granted
time till the end of December, 2014 to vacate the premises,
subject to filing the usual undertaking in the Registry of
this Court within four weeks from that date, stating that
the petitioner will not create any third party rights, all
the mesne profits will be paid in the meanwhile, and will
peacefully vacate the premises concerned at the end of
December, 2014.
2. That special leave petition was filed to
challenge the judgment dated 10th May, 2013 of the High
Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.2898/2011 and L.P.A.
No.174 of 2012 under which the order passed by the Estate
Officer of the appellant, and confirmed by the City Civil
Court was left undisturbed. The order dated 19th August,
2013 required the respondent to file the necessary
undertaking, but it was not filed, and the mesne profits as
required have also not been paid. It is also pointed out
that subsequently one more I.A., being I.A. No.2 of 2014,
was taken out by the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. to be relieved
of this undertaking, and that I.A. was not pressed, and the
same came to be dismissed by this Court by its order dated
7th October, 2013.
3. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the petitioner Central Bank of India points
out that the financial difficulties of the respondent were
placed on record in that I.A. and subsequently the same has
been withdrawn. That being so, there was no reason for the
respondent not to file the undertaking and not to pay the
mesne profits as required. He has drawn our attention to
two judgments of this Court in almost similar
circumstances. One was the case of Ram Pyari (Smt.) & Ors.
vs. Jagdish Lal reported in 1992 (1) SCC 157, and the other
was that of Santanu Chaudhuri vs. Subir Ghosh reported in
2007 (10) SCC 253. In both these matters undertakings to
vacate were given but they were not complied with, and
therefore the contempt petition was filed. This Court in
both these matters noted that since undertaking was not
given, there could not be any contempt as such, but the
order passed by this Court had to be complied with, and
therefore permitted the petitioners to take the help of
police to take back the possession of the concerned
premises.
4. Mr. T.R. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel,
appeared for the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. He relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Gobind Ram
reported in 1990 (1) SCC 193 to submit that the Estate
Officer was coram non judice, since according to him he did
not have jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction. He
referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director, Health Services,
Haryana reported in 2013 (10) SCC 136 to submit that the
question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. He
has drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by this
Court in C.A.No.1970 of 2014 on 11th February, 2014 in the
case of Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. and Its Estate Officer to which one of us (H.L.
Gokhale,J.) was a party. Mr. Andhiyarujina has submitted
that this judgment clearly lays down that the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971
will not apply prior to the Act coming into force, that is
prior to 16th September, 1958. He has drawn our attention
to various paragraphs of this judgment and submitted that
though this judgment has been rendered subsequent to the
dismissal of the present special leave petition, inasmuch
as the law is now clarified, the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd.
cannot be said to be an unauthorized occupant, nor can the
action under the Public Premises Act be said to be valid.
He pointed out that the N.R.C. Ltd. has been a tenant of
this property since about 1946. Subsequently, the building
wherein its premises are situated, was taken over by the
Life Insurance Corporation, and thereafter by the Central
Bank of India. In view of this judgment, the relationship
between the Central Bank of India and the N.R.C. Ltd. as
landlord and tenant will continue to be governed under the
Bombay Rent Act and now under The Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999.
5. Inasmuch as this submission has been raised by
Mr. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel, we would like to
point out that this judgment in Dr. Pophale’s case
clarifies the legal position as laid down by this Court
earlier in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. vs.
Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in 1990 (4) SCC 406.
That judgment has held that the Public Premises Act and the
State Rent Control Acts were both referable to the
concurrent list, and would be valid in their spheres, but
Public Premises Act will prevail to the extent of any
repugnancy. Therefore, this Court held earlier in the case
of Banatwala and Company vs. Life Insurance Corporation of
India & Anr. reported in 2011 (13) SCC 446 that to the
extent the Public Premises Act covers the relationship
between the landlord and the tenant, namely, for eviction
of unauthorized occupants and for recovery of arrears of
rent, the Public Premises Act will apply and not in other
aspects of their relationship. This is why in Banatwala's
case (supra) it was held that the application for the
maintenance of the premises would lie to the Court of Small
Causes in Mumbai, and it will not be hit by the provisions
of the Public Premises Act. The issue in Dr. Suhas H.
Pophale's case was as to when the Public Premises Act will
apply, and it was laid down that the Act will not apply
prior to the Act coming into force, and until the premises
concerned belonged to the concerned public corporation,
whichever is the later date. This was on the footing that
if there are any welfare provisions in the statutes, the
legislature cannot be intended to have taken them away if
there is no repugnancy.
6. In Dr. Suhas H. Pophale's case the judgment of
this Court in the case of Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh,
Nagpur vs. The Model Mills, Nagpur and Anr. reported in AIR
1984 S.C. 1813 was specifically referred in paragraph No.29
to point out that if there is any welfare provision in a
statute it cannot be taken away. This was in the context
of the Payment of Bonus Act. It was also held that the
judgment in M/s Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs. Life
Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. reported in 1980 (4)
SCC 435 did not consider the issue of protection in a
welfare legislation to the tenant, prior to the premises
becoming public premises, and the issue of
retrospectivity. So also these issues were not in
consideration in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (supra).
In paragraph 49 of Dr. Pophale’s case, this Court discussed
the inter relation between Article 254(1) and 254 (2) of
the Constitution, and specifically pointed out that the
Government and the statutory corporations were taken out of
the protective umbrella when the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act was passed, and so they would be covered under the
Public Premises Act, but of course from the date when the
Act comes into force or from the date when the premises
belong to the concerned Government corporation. What
applies to the landlord, equally applies to the tenants.
7. As far as the present action initiated by the
Central Bank of India is concerned, the notice to evict was
issued on 26th June, 2007, much after the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act came into force on 31.3.2000. This Act clearly
lays down that it shall not apply to Public Ltd. Companies
having a paid up share capital of Rs. One Crore or more.
Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act reads as follows:-
3 Exemption
(1) This act shall not apply
(a) ........
(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 rupees one crore or more."
There is no dispute that the respondent N.R.C.
Ltd. is a company having a paid up share capital of more
than rupees one crore. That being so, the protective
umbrella of the State Rent Control Act which was available
to the N.R.C. Ltd. would not be available to it beyond
31.3.2000. That being so, the provisions of Public
Premises Act would clearly apply to these premise on or
after 31.3.2000 for the purposes of eviction of
unauthorised occupants and therefore, the action initiated
by the Central Bank of India could not be faulted with.
8. Mr. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the N.R.C. Ltd. has drawn our attention to
the fact that the company’s affairs are before the BIFR,
and it also had correspondence with the trade union
representing the employees, but the employees union was not
ready to help in any manner. Those are different aspects,
and as pointed out by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel, the financial difficulties of N.R.C. Ltd. were
brought to the notice of this Court by filing the I.A.No.2
of 2014 which was not pressed, and that being so, the issue
cannot be allowed to be re-agitated. A tenant or an
occupant cannot be permitted to be on the premises of the
landlord without paying the rent, or the occupation
charges, which is what N.R.C. Ltd. is attempting to do.
9. This being the position, in our view, the Central
Bank will be entitled to take back the possession of the
concerned premises with respect to which the order of
eviction has been passed, and we permit it to resume the
same by taking the help of police if required.
The contempt petition is allowed in the above
terms.
...................J.
[H.L. GOKHALE ]
...................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH ]
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 05, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment