Gujarat High Court
Darabshaw B Curshetjee And Sons ... vs Amba Vijay Private Limited Co on 4 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 262 of 2003
==========================================================
DARABSHAW B CURSHETJEE AND SONS (GUJARAT) PRIVATE LIMITED.
& ORS.
Versus
AMBA VIJAY PRIVATE LIMITED CO.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RC KAKKAD(389) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
DELETED for the Opponent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 04/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Bobay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (for short "the Rent Act") challenging Judgment and Decree dated 26.08.2002 passed by Assistant Judge, Jamnagar, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.115 of 1987, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated 06.07.1987, on the ground that defendants are tenant in arrears, has been confirmed the Cross Objection of the plaintiff to the fact that the Trial Court has erred in not granting eviction on the ground that defendant nos.1 to 8 have sublet the suit premises to defendant no.9, is quashed and set aside and held that defendant nos.1 to 8 have sublet the suit premises to defendant no.9 by the First Appellate Court.
Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience the parties are referred to as they are stated before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Application are as under.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that rent note dated 17.05.1961 produced vide Exhibit-57 has been executed between defendant no.1 i.e. the partnership firm and the predecessor in title of the plaintiff and the partners of defendant nos.1 to 5 Firm cease to function its business and the plaintiff being a Private Ltd. Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, filed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises and that defendant no.1- Partnership Firm cease to function its business.
5. It was the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that even after the expiry of the period of lease, the defendant no.1 continued the tenancy and defendant no.1 has unlawfully sublet, transferred or assigned its interest in the suit premises and handed over the Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined exclusive possession of the premises to defendant no.9 which is a Pvt. Ltd. Company on or about 01.11.1969 and the same is without the consent of the plaintiff.
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that earlier the plaintiff had filed Suit No.534 of 2017 against defendant nos.1 and 9 for eviction and as there was a defective suit notice, the said suit was dismissed and the matter was contested up to the High Court and thereafter, the plaintiff was given liberty to file a fresh suit and the plaintiff withdrew the said suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice upon the defendant partnership firm and its partners demanding arrears of rent for more than six months and as the defendant nos.2 to 8 did not adhere to the said demand, the plaintiff filed suit on the ground that defendants, defendants partnership firm and its partners are tenant in arrears and the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction on the ground of subletting and in the said suit defendants appeared and defendant nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 filed their written statement vide exhibit 33 and defendant no.9 filed written statement at exhibit 32. The Trial Court framed issues vide exhibit 34 as under:
"(1) Whether plaintiff proves that Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined
defendants are tenant in arrears for more than six months?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves that defendant no.1 to 7 have sub-leted the suit premises to defendant no.8?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.26702 as rent from defendants 1 to 7?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for in para (5) of the plaint? (5) Whether defendants prove that plaintiff's suit is not tenable?"
7. The suit was decreed on the finding of issue no.1 and the issue no.2 was in negative. And after going through the documentary evidence, oral evidence and giving finding on all issues, the Trial Court granted eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent and therefore, directed the defendants and the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendants to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises. Thereafter, the defendant challenged the said order by way of filing Regular Civil Appeal No.115 of 1987 and in the said appeal the plaintiff filed Cross Objection vide exhibit 19, on the ground that the Trial Court has erred in deciding Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined issue no.2. Along with the ground that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises on the ground that the defendants are in arrears of rent, the plaintiff is also entitled for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises as defendant nos.1 to 8 have sublet the suit premises to defendant no.9. After re-appreciating the evidence the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the defendants and has set aside the findings of the Trial Court so far as the issue of subletting of defendant nos.1 to 8 in favor of defendant no.9, and held that the defendant nos.1 to 8 have subletted the suit premises to defendant no.9, hence the present Civil Revision Application.
Submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner defendant- tenant.
8. Learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that the finding of the Trial Court on the ground of subletting was proper and the Appellate Court could not have set aside the said finding of the Trial Court, as only the name of the defendant no.1 partnership firm has changed. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that the suit property was let to the firm of "Ms. Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined Darabshaw B. Curshetjee & Sons" and right from the beginning of tenancy, said premises was used for residential purpose of its servants.
9. The learned advocate for the defendant relied on the terms of the lease deed which is produced at Exhibit-57 and argued that in the said lease deed, there is no restriction on the plaintiff to convert the defendant no.1 partnership firm into a company.
10. The learned advocate for the defendant has also argued that by converting the partnership firm into a company, the same does not amount to a breach of tenancy and that the same does not amount to subletting the suit property to a third party.
11. Learned advocate for the defendant has also argued that from the plain reading of the written statement and the oral evidence led by the the defendants, the defendants have clearly stated that defendant no.9-Company, which has come into existence and is in possession of the property, and the said company is ready and willing to pay the rent and therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court could not have granted a decree of eviction on the Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined ground of defendants being tenant in arrears and therefore also, the decree of eviction on the ground of defendants being tenants in arrears could not have been passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
12. The learned advocate for the defendant has also argued that the partners of defendant no.1-Trust Partnership, are the shareholders in defendant no.-9-Company and therefore also there is no subletting of the suit property by defendant no.1 in favor of defendant no.9 and therefore also, the First Appellate Court could not have granted a decree of eviction on the ground of defendant no.1, subletting the property in favour of defendant no.9. In view of the said fact, it has been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court are required to be quashed and set aside.
Submissions of learned advocate for the plaintiff:-
13. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has relied on the fact that the terms of the rent note are very clear wherein the clause states as Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined under:
"that the lessee shall not assign his interest in the said premises under this present nor underlet nor part with the possession of the same or any part thereof to any person whomsoever without the consent in writing of the lessor."
14. Therefore it has been argued that the admitted fact in the present case is that the rent note produced vide exhibit 57, dated 17.05.1961 is in name of defendant no.1 and defendant no.9 was incorporated on 15.07.1969 and the partners of defendant no.1 dissolved the firm by virtue of an instrument dated 15.07.1971. Therefore, it has been argued that at the time when the predecessor of the plaintiff had executed a rent note in favor of defendant No.1, defendant no.9 was not in existence, and the fact that defendant no.1, having been dissolved, it cannot be said that defendant no.9 is the same entity as defendant no.1.
15. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of U.P.State Industrial Dev. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Monsanto Manufacturers (P) Ltd. reported in AIR 2015 SC 1445, in case of Ms.General Radio & Appliances Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined Co. Ltd. V. M.A.Khader reported in AIR 1986 SC 1218, in case of Singer India Ltd. V. Chander Mohan Chadah reported in AIR 2004 SC 4368.
16. It has been argued by learned advocate for the plaintiff that there is a clear admission of the defendant's witness produced at exhibit 115, that the shareholders of defendant no.9 along with the erstwhile partners of defendant no.1, there are other persons who are the shareholders of defendant no.9 and therefore, it has been argued that it cannot be said that defendant no.1 and defendant no.9 are the same entity and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant no.1 has not sublet the suit property to defendant no.9.
17. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that looking to the facts of the present case, the defendant no.1 has not paid any amount of rent though having been served with a statutory notice and looking at the oral evidence of defendant, the defendant has categorically stated in their written statement that they are ready and willing to pay the rent, if the plaintiff accepts the rent from defendant no.9-Company and therefore, as defendant no.9 is not a tenant of the plaintiff and therefore, it has been argued that the Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined plaintiff has proved that the defendant no.1 is tenant in arrears and therefore, even on the ground of defendant being tenant in arrears, the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises.
18. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having considered the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the oral evidence led by the parties to the present proceedings and also the record and proceedings, the fact remains that, while deciding the present Civil Revision Application, the dispute that pertains in the present proceeding is with respect to eviction order on the ground of subletting Section 13(1)(e) as under:-
"(e) that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of this Act, [unlaw-fully sub-let] the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein; or [(ee) that the tenant has, after the commennent of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, 1963, given the whole or any part of the premises on licence for monetary Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined consideration to any person, without the previous permission of the landlord; or]"
19. While taking into consideration the fact of whether the plaintiff has proved that the suit property was given on rent to defendant no.1, the said fact is very clear from the rent note produced vide exhibit 57, which clearly states that, the suit property was given on rent to defendant no.1.
20. Moreover, the fact remains that, the said rent note is of date 17.05.1961 and on that date, defendant no.9 was not even in existence and defendant no.9 was incorporated on 15.07.1969 and therefore, it cannot be said that, the suit property was given on rent to defendant no.9. The argument that learned advocate for the defendant has made is that, there is only a change in name and there is only a change of identity of the tenant and earlier the tenant of the suit premises was a partnership firm, which were represented by the partners of the siad partnership firm and at present, the said company, wherein the partners are the shareholders of the said company are the tenants of the suit premises. The fact remains that, even as per the oral evidence of the defendant at exhibit 115, Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined whereby, the officer of defendant no.9 was examined and when the said witness was shown, mark 82/9, the shareholders of defendant no.9, as on 18.07.1969, at serial nos.2 to 8 are mentioned and "others" which is mentioned in the said document, he could not recollect the names of other shareholders and at para 30 of his cross-examination, the said witness of the defendant also states that, there are 2 to 4 Directors in Defendant no.9 company. Therefore, it can be clearly established that, over and above the partners of defendant no.1, there are other persons/entity, who are shareholders of defendant no.9. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the defendant no.1 and defendant no.9 are the same entity.
21. In the present case, the defendant no.1-partnership firm has dissolved on 15.07.1971 and therefore, it cannot be said that, defendant no.1 is one of the shareholders of defendant no.9 and therefore, it can be clearly established that, defendant no.1 has parted with possession of the suit property in favor of defendant no.9. Moreover, it is not the case of defendant no.1 that, along with defendant no.9, defendant no.1 is also doing business in the suit premises. The fact remains that, the defendant no.1 has already been dissolved in the year 1971.
Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined
22. The admitted fact remains that, a distinct legal entity, namely a company i.e. defendant no.9 has been given exclusive possession of the suit premises for carrying on its activities and defendant no.9 admittedly has been claiming a independent right to hold the disputed premises as tenant. The fact remains that, defendant no.9 is a distinct legal entity, its assets and liabilities belong to defendant no.9, which can sue and be sued in its name and defendant no.9 is run by different group of persons and it is not relevant if some of the partners of dissolved partnership firm of defendant no.1 are shareholders of defendant no.9. Moreover, it is a specific case of defendant no.1 that defendant no.1 has been dissolved and defendant no.9 is occupying the tenant in premises and carrying on its various activities from the said premises by asserting its independent right as a tenant. Moreover, defendant no.1 has also stated that the defendant no.1 is ready and willing to pay the rent and the same be accepted from defendant no.9 which is a separate entity.
23. The fact that, defendant no.1 has clearly stated that, defendant no.9 is carrying on its business in the a suit premises, the activities of Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined defendant no.9 cannot be held to be activities of defendant no.1. Hence, the defendant no.1 has parted with the possession of the premises in favor of defendant no.9.
24. Hence, the defendant no.1 has parted with the possession of the premises without the consent of the plaintiff and sublet the suit premises to defendant no.9.
25. In view of the said fact, the First Appellate Court has, after re-
appreciating the evidence, come to the right conclusion that defendant no.1 has sublet the premises to defendant no.9. Moreover, the rent note itself is very clear, wherein it has been mentioned that the defendant no.1 cannot assign his interest in the premises or let or part with possession without the consent in writing of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is a complete breach of the condition and therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly held the cross objection filed by respondent no.1 as tenable and granted decree of eviction of the defendant from the premises under the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act.
26. With respect to the issue of arrears, the Trial Court and the Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined Appellate Court have come to the conclusion that the rent is remained due from 01.11.1969 to 29.02.1980 that is 124 months., the statutory notice under the provisions of Section 12 was served on the partners of the firm and after service of the said notice, the defendant no.1 and the partners of defendant no.1 did not pay the amount of rent demanded in the notice. Moreover, the partners of the firm did not pay the rent in the Court at the time of filing their written statement and the only ground that defendant no.1 and the partners of defendant no.1 have taken is that prior to demand notice and after service of demand notice, the demanded rent was tendered by defendant no.9-Company which was not accepted by the plaintiff and the partners of the plaintiff firm have insisted in the written statement that they are ready and willing to pay the rent, if the plaintiff accepts the rent from defendant no.9-Company.
27. The fact remains that the Company is a juristic person different from its directors and defendant no.9 is not the tenant of the plaintiff and therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly come to the finding that the partners of the defendant no.1-firm were liable to pay the rent, but they denied to pay and therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined committed any error in holding that, the defendant nos.1 to 8 were tenant in arrears for more than 6 months.
28. In case of U.P.State Industrial Dev. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Monsanto Manufacturers (P) Ltd. reported in AIR 2015 SC 1445, held in para nos.4, 11 and 21 as under:-
"4. The questions that arise for our consideration in these appeals are:
(i) Whether by the alleged action the respondents-Companies directly or indirectly had transferred or parted with their interest/benefit under their respective agreements for licence.
(ii) Whether the respondents-Companies violated the terms as contained in Clause 4(h) of agreement and Clause 3(p)of their lease deed and
(iii) Whether the respondents-Companies are liable to pay transfer fee for alleged transfer of its own interest.
11. The Civil Judge, Bulandshahr vide judgment Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined and decree dated 23rd January, 1999 allowed the suit and directed the appellant-Corporation not to charge transfer levy from the respondent- Company. The Civil Judge, held that the respondent-Company is a legal person and disposal of its majority shares in the name of a foreign Company namely Rotar India Ltd. does not change the legal status of the Company and therefore, there is no transfer.
21. Clause 4(h) of the licence agreement prohibits licensee's acts to directly or indirectly transfer, assignment, sale, encumber or part with its interest under the benefit of the said Agreement without previous consent in writing of the Grantor, relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"4(h). That the Licence will not directly or indirectly transfer, assign, sell, encumber or part with its interest under or the benefit of this Agreement or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the Grantor and it shall be open to the Grantor to refuse such consent or grant the same subject to such conditions as Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined may be laid down by the Grantor in the behalf.""
29. In case of Ms.General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. V. M.A.Khader reported in AIR 1986 SC 1218, held in para nos.13 and 14 as under:-
"13. We have already stated hereinbefore that the 1st appellant company, the tenant, has transferred their interest in the tenanted premises to the appellant No. 2 company on the basis of the order made by the High Court of Bombay in Company Petition No. 4 of 1968 sanctioning the scheme submitted to it by the transferor company. We have also held that this is not an involuntary transfer by operation of law, but a transfer of the interest of the tenant company on the basis of their application made before the said High Court in the said Company Petition. Furthermore, we have also held that the Andrha Pradesh Bulidings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 which is a special Act provides specific grounds for termination of a tenancy and eviction of the tenant in S. 10(ii)(a) i.e. on the ground of subletting and/or Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined transferring the interest of the tenant either in whole or any part of the tenanted premises to another person. Thus the Act prohibits in specific terms both subletting as well as the transfer or assignment of the interest of the tenant. Moreover clause 4 of the rent agreement executed by the 1st appellant expressly prohibits subletting of the tenanted premises without the express consent of the landlord. The transferor company in this case has undoubtedly been dissolved and the company has ceased to exist for all practical purpose in the eye of law. All the interest of the transferor company including possession in respect of the tenanted premises have been transferred to the transferee company in contravention of the provisions of the said Act as well as in contravention of the terms and conditions of the said rent agreement thereby making the transferee company liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises.
14. It has been observed by Subba Rao, J. in the case of Venkatarama Iyer v. Renters Ltd., [1951] II M.L.R. 57 as follows:
"The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined Control Act applies not only to residential and non- residential buildings, but also to same buildings used for both purposes. If a Company doing business in a particular premises (taken on lease) transfers its business as a going concern to another company and also the net assets for consideration and thereafter the transferee company takes over the business and carries on business in the premises let out to the former company it cannot be said that there was no transfer of the right of the former company under the lease to the latter company. On such transfer the tenant is liable to be evicted."
30. In case of Singer India Ltd. V. Chander Mohan Chadha reported in AIR 2004 SC 4368, held in para nos.12 as under:-
"12. Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (West) vs. Inder Singh and others 1986(3) SCC 62 cited by Shri Divan, does not advance the case of the appellant either as, here, the Court on the basis of material on record found as a fact that the Limited Company was formed with the partners of the existing tenant firm as Directors and Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined both the firm and the company were operating from the same place, each acting as agent of the other. It was also found as a fact that the company was only an 'alter ego' or a 'corporate reflection' of the tenant firm and the two were for all practical purposes having substantial identity and, consequently, there was no sub-letting, assignment or parting with possession of the premises by the firm to the company so as to attract Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. This case has been decided purely on facts peculiar to it and no principle of law has been laid down. The position in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and another vs. Shyam Co-
operative Housing Society and others 1988(4) SCC 747 cited by learned counsel for the appellant has hardly any application here. It is not a case of amalgamation of two companies but acquisition of undertaking of a Foreign Company by the Central Government. Section 5 of Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 provided that where any property is held in India by Esso under any lease or under any right of tenancy, the Central Government shall, on from the appointed day be deemed Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined to have become the lessee or tenant, as the case may be, in respect of such property as if the lease or tenancy in relation to such property had been granted to the Central Government, and thereupon all the rights under such lease or tenancy shall be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in the Central Government. In view of this statutory provision, the Central government, by operation of law, became the tenant of all such properties which were being held by Esso under any lease or any right of tenancy. There is no statutory enactment here which may give any kind of protection to the appellant."
31. Therefore, on the basis of overall basis of the material on record, on the basis of conclusion that has been referred to by the Appellate Court, the Court is of the opinion that there is no material irregularity nor any perversity reflecting which would permit this Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The entire reasoning of the Appellate Court at the findings are based upon clear analysis of the testimony of the witnesses for either side and also in consonance with documentary material and according to Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined this Court it cannot be said that there is any perversity in the said order. Moreover, while deciding the Revision Application by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under this Act is confined to find out that findings of fact recorded by the courts below is according to law and does not suffer from any abuse of law. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, would result in gross miscarriage of justice, the same is open for correction because it is not treated as finding according to Law and in that event the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Bombay Rent Act, is entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper but in the present case, the Appellate Court has rightly reappreciated the facts and come to a finding that defendant nos.1 to 8 were the tenant of the said property and the defendant nos.1 to 8 are tenant in arrears and have sublet the premises to defendant no.9.
32. The High Court can not interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the first Appellate Court. The consideration or examination of Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under this Act is confined to find out that finding recorded by the courts below is according to Law and does not suffer from any error of Law and only if the finding of facts recorded by the courts below, is perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or that such finding is based on no evidence, or misreading of the evidence, or is grossly erroneous that, if allow to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice and the same is open to correction as the same is not treated as findings according to Law and in the present case, the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court is neither perverse nor arrived at without consideration of the material evidence. In the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can not exercise its powers as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding of facts. Revisional jurisdiction is not and can not be equated with the powers of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.
33. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court below is based on critical appreciation of the evidence led by the parties on record and does not suffer any error or material irregularities. The Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/262/2003 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025 undefined Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the tenant is in arrears paying rent & has sublet the suit premises and therefore, there was no error committed by the Appellate Court which requires any correction at the hands of the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
34. Under the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. In view of the aforesaid facts and proposition of law and in view of the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below, since no case is made out to call for any interference in the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present Revision Application requires to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Sat Apr 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 22:43:06 IST 2025