Delhi District Court
Sh. Anil Aggarwal vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 2 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE /
APPELLATE AUTHORITY: NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/2013)
CNR No.DLND010003372013
Sh. Anil Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Magan Lal Aggarwal
R/o 118, Medha Apartments
Mayur Vihar, PhaseI
Delhi110 091. ..... Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Having its Northern Zone Office at
Jeevan Bharti Building, TowerII
124, Connaught Circus
New Delhi110 001. .....Respondent
AND
In the matter of :
PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/2013)
CNR No.DLND010004012013
M/s Ceat Ltd.
A Company Incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its registered
Office at RPG House
463 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli
Mumbai400 030. ..... Appellant
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND
PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 1 of 41
Versus
1. The Estate Officer
Office of the Estate Officer
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Northern Zone
Jeevan Prakash Building, 2nd Floor (Mezzanine)
25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg
New Delhi110 001.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Having its Northern Zonal Office at
Jeevan Bharti Building, TowerII
New Delhi110 001.
3. Mr. Anil Agarwal
118, Medha Apartment
Plot No. 7, Mayur Vihar
PhaseI Extension
Delhi110 091. .....Respondents
Date of filing of appeals : 03.08.2013
Date of arguments : 02.03.2020
Date of judgment : 02.03.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, I propose to dispose of the aforesaid appeals filed by the appellant i.e. Sh. Anil Aggarwal in PPA No. 34/2013 & M/s Ceat Limited in PPA No. 35/2013, PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 2 of 41 under Section 9 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ("PP Act" in short), challenging the impugned order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Estate Officer, LIC of India, New Delhi, vide which, the appellants i.e. M/s Ceat Ltd and Sh. Anil Aggarwal were directed to pay damages @ Rs.21,769.20 per month w.e.f. 01.07.1997 to 24.05.2001, jointly on account of their unauthorised occupation of the premises i.e. Flat No. 10, admeasuring 1209.40 sq. ft. or thereabouts on the IVth floor of the property known as Jeevan Deep Building situated at Parliament Street, New Delhi ("Premises" in short), along with interest @10% per annum, electricity charges and water charges.
2. The facts in brief are that M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India filed a petition under Section 5 & 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, against M/s Ceat Ltd. and Sh. Anil Aggarwal, alleging therein that the petitioner corporation i.e. M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India is the owner of Flat No. 10, admeasuring 1209.40 sq. ft. or thereabouts on the IVth floor of the property known as Jeevan Deep Building situated at Parliament Street, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises). The demised premises was let out to M/s Murphy India Ltd. @ PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 3 of 41 Rs.506.43 per month. M/s Murphy India Ltd. was amalgamated with M/s Ceat Ltd. by order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and thus, by operation of law, M/s Ceat Ltd./R1 became the tenant of petitioner corporation in respect of the said flat. During inspection, it was found that Sh. Anil Aggarwal (respondent no.2) has been occupying the demised premises without any authority or permission in writing from the petitioner corporation. The petitioner corporation served a legal notice dated 23.05.1997 whereby the tenancy of R1 (M/s Ceat Ltd.) was terminated and it was called upon to quit/handover the peaceful vacant possession of the said premises to the petitioner corporation on or before 01.07.1997. The respondents were also conveyed that in case they failed to vacate the suit premises, they would be liable to pay damages @ Rs.30,235/ per month w.e.f. 01.07.1997. The petitioner corporation also informed the respondents that if any amount is remitted by respondent no.1 after the expiry of the period of termination notice, the same shall be kept in the suspense account without any prejudice to their legal rights and will be adjusted only after the adjudication of the matter in due course. The rate of damages was fixed by the petitioner corporation keeping the location, use, size and standard of the accommodation available in such premises as well as the PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 4 of 41 prevalent market rent of the area where the demised premises is situated. Since, the respondent failed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises, they became unauthorized occupant and thus, liable to be evicted from the suit premises and also liable to pay the damages and further dues to the petitioner corporation jointly and severally. The notice of the petition was sent to the respondents. The respondents filed their detailed reply. The parties also led their evidence and after the detailed proceedings, the Estate Officer vide order dated 01.07.2013 in exercise of his power under Section 7(2) of the PP Act ordered the respondents to pay damages @Rs.21,769.20 per month w.e.f. 01.07.1997 to 24.05.2001 along with interest @10% per annum besides electricity and water charges. The Estate Officer further ordered that the outstanding dues as mentioned above shall be paid by both the respondents joinly i.e. half of the total amount by each. The total amount calculated was Rs.24,14,733/.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of the proceedings, the vacant peaceful possession of the demised premises was handed over to the petitioner corporation on 24.05.2001.
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 5 of 41
4. In the proceedings before the Estate Officer, the respondent no.1 M/s Ceat Ltd. took a plea that the petitioner corporation admitted R1 as lawful tenant. R1 relied upon the notice dated 14.12.1995 whereby the tenancy of R1 was terminated vide notice dated 31.01.1996. It was stated that in response to the notice dated 14.12.1995, R1 vide its letter dated 23.05.1996 confirmed that it had no interest in the demised premises pursuant to the aforesaid termination of the tenancy. R 1 also informed the petitioner corporation that appropriate proceedings may be initiated against R2 for taking over the possession from him. It was stated that the subsequent notice of the petitioner corporation dated 23.05.1997, vide which the tenancy was terminated on 30.06.1997 has no relevance as R1 vide its letter dated 23.05.1996 had already informed that the company M/s Ceat Ltd. had no interest in the tenanted premises. R1 stated that damages, if any, may be recovered from R2 only.
5. R2 (Mr. Anil Aggarwal) in its reply stated that the aforesaid flat was no more under his possession and he was staying in the premises as representative of M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. and had vacated the suit premises on 21.06.1997. R2 stated that the petitioner corporation may deal with M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. directly.
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 6 of 41
6. In the rejoinder, the petitioner corporation stated that R1 was responsible for handing over the possession of the suit premises to the petitioner corporation and the possession given to R2 was without any written consent of the petitioner corporation. The petitioner corporation stated that the notice dated 14.12.1995 was superseded by notice dated 23.05.1997 . The petitioner corporation also denied that the suit premises was ever under the tenancy of M/s Lakhanpal Ltd.
7. During the course of the proceeding, R2 moved an application dated 31.05.2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for striking of his name on the ground that there is no privity of contract between him and the petitioner corporation. It was stated that the premises in dispute was let out to M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. and since, he was residing there as a representative of M/s Lakhanpal, no proceeding can be initiated against him for recovery of damages. However, the said application was dismissed by the Estate Officer.
8. R1 also moved an application dated 16.10.2020 under Section 151 CPC for deletion of his name from the present proceeding on the ground that it had never been in possession of the demised premises. R1 also relied upon the averment made in PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 7 of 41 the petitioner corporation's notice dated 14.12.1995 whereby it was stated that the demised premises was let out to M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. R1 also moved an application dated 16.10.2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for addition of M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. to the array of parties before the Estate Officer. This application was also dismissed by the Estate Officer vide the impugned order.
9. The petitioner corporation raised the points of dispute before the Estate Officer i.e. Whether the respondent no.1 was the tenant prior to the termination of tenancy? Petitioner corporation relied upon the letter of R1 dated 28.12.1990 with copy of BIFR order Ex. PW1/R9A. Beside this, petitioner corporation also relied upon certain other communications i.e. letter dated 17.02.1972, 27.05.1976,08.05.1984,20.05.1971 and 18.09.1987 exhibited as PW1/R1, PW1/R5, PW1/R3, PW1/R2 and PW1/R4 respectively. Petitioner corporation also relied upon the letter of M/s Ceat Ltd. dated 23.09.1996 to R2 about his illegal possession. R1 also deposited rent, electricity and water charges through draft no. 360574 dated 21.04.1995 drawn on SBI for Rs.8,580.50 vide covering letter dated 12.05.1995 and also another letter draft for Rs. 2,972.98 being No. 100021 dated 11.07.1995 drawn on Allahabad Bank, vide covering letter dated PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 8 of 41 13.07.1995. R1 also served a notice dated 23.05.1996 upon R2 through Mulla & Mulla, Advocates, for calling upon him to vacate the demised premises. R1 had also written a letter to the petitioner corporation dated 10.11.1994 and further deposited the rent of Rs.606.93 through bank draft no. 286683 dated 08.02.1994 drawn on ANZ Grandlay Bank with covering letter dated 14.02.1994 Ex.PW1/9B.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that the Estate Officer reproduced the letter dated 21.12.1992 whereby M/s Ceat Ltd. had specifically stated that consequent upon BIFR order dated 31.08.1990, the tenancy rights of the demised premises has vested in M/s Ceat Ltd. Petitioner corporation took a plea before the Estate Officer that since the demised premises was let out to M/s Murphy India Ltd., therefore, without the tenancy of M/s Murphy India Ltd. being terminated, there is no possibility of giving the demised premises on rent to M/s Lakhanpal Ltd.
11. The petitioner corporation through the witness Sh. Alok Shukla produced the letter dated 20.05.1971, 17.02.72, 08.08.1984 and 18.09.1984 as Ex.PW1/R2, PW1/R1, PW1/R3 and PW1/R4 respectively, to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner corporation and M/s Murphy India PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 9 of 41 Ltd. The Estate Officer took into account the documents submitted by R1, procured by it from the petitioner corporation through RTI. The Estate Officer inter alia held that M/s Murphy India Ltd. was the tenant of the petitioner corporation before amalgamation of M/s Murphy India Ltd with M/s Ceat Ltd. The Estate Officer inter alia held that in respect of payment of rent made by M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. to M/s LIC of India, the same were one sided and there were no documents that M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. made the payment towards the payment of rent demanded by M/s LIC of India and no receipt had ever been issued by M/s LIC of India in the name of M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. Even it came on record that M/s LIC of India had returned cheque no. 077598 dated 20.12.2000 of Rs.49059.85 and cheque no. 546485 dated 10.08.2000 of Rs. 49059.85 to M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. under protest that he was not the party in the case. Similarly, LIC had returned two cheques no. 061714 and 0724412 dated 17.12.1997 and 19.08.1998, amounting to Rs.24,143.53 each respectively, under protest that they did not accept third party cheques. M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. never protested to LIC that why it was terming it as third party. The Estate Officer noted that petitioner corporation had conceded that notice dated 14.12.1995 was issued under mistake and the same was corrected vide another PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 10 of 41 notice dated 23.05.1997. The Estate Officer inter alia held that R2 Sh. Anil Agarwal was in physical possession of the suit premises since 1988. Earlier the premises in question was in possession with M/s Murphy India Ltd. and post amalgamation, the premises was occupied by M/s Ceat Ltd. The Estate Officer noted that neither M/s Murphy India Ltd. nor M/s Ceat Ltd. ever initiated any proceeding against R2 to get him evicted from the suit premises and therefore, R2 was earlier residing in the demised premises with the implied consent of M/s Murphy India Ltd and subsequently, with the implied consent of R1. The Estate Officer also inter alia held that tenancy of R1 was terminated through notice dated 23.05.1997 and this notice was duly served upon the respondent. The Estate Officer relying upon the Rule 8 of PP Act assessed the damages @Rs.18/ per sq. ft. per month w.e.f. 01.07.1997 to 24.05.2001 and also hold petitioner corporation to be entitled of interest @10% per annum. Respondent no.1 also filed point of dispute which was also handled and replied by the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer inter alia held that since both the respondents failed to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the demised premises in pursuance to the legal notice dated 23.05.1997 and therefore, they became unauthorized occupant of the suit premises w.e.f.
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 11 of 41 01.07.1997.
12. The appellants aggrieved by this filed their separate appeals, challenging the impugned order.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that the main challenge in PPA No. 35/2013 to the impugned order is that the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. was neither the tenant of the respondent no. 2/LIC of India nor there was any agreement to lease nor it was ever put in possession of the premises by the respondent no. 2. The respondent No. 2 did not place on record any document to show that there was any lease agreement between the respondent No. 2 and Murphy India Limited. The respondent No. 2 failed to explain before the Ld. Estate Officer as on what basis it received vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises on 24.05.2001 from Pradeep Kumar c/o Lakhanpal Industries, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, which proves that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent No.2 and Lakhanpal Industries. Neither the appellant handed over the possession to the respondent No.2 nor authorized anyone on its behalf to hand over the possession to respondent no. 1 as the appellant was never in possession either physical or symbolic. Thus, imposition of 50% of damages upon the appellant by the PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 12 of 41 Estate Officer is perverse. Appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. was not aware of actual position of the premises in question that actually Murphy India Limited was not the tenant but M/s Lakhanpal was the tenant in premises in question. After amalgamation, it was M/s Lakhanpal Limited who was paying the rent, electricity etc. It is not the case of the respondent no.2/LIC of India that the appellant was in possession of premises in question. On 31.01.1996 the alleged tenancy stood terminated and from 01.02.1996, the appellant never occupied the said flat nor had authorised the proforma respondent / Mr. Anil Agarwal to occupy the said flat and as such the provisions of Public Premises Act, 1971 are not applicable to the appellant. The appellant filed several applications under the RTI Act and the respondent No.2 produced various documents which were deliberately suppressed and concealed by the respondent No. 2 from the Estate officer / respondent No.1 till 2010. The respondent No.1/ Estate Officer failed to appreciate the fact as revealed under the RTI Act, 2005 that the said Lakhanpal Limited has also been making the payment of rent, water and electricity charges for the said flat prior to and even after amalgamation of the said M/s Murphy India Limited with the appellant, which the respondent No. 2 has been accepting before the appellant made any payments. The PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 13 of 41 Estate Officer erred in holding that M/s Murphy India Limited was the tenant of the respondent No.2 before amalgamation of M/s Murphy India Limited with the appellant on 01.07.1989. The findings were solely based on the submissions of the respondent No.2, grossly ignoring the factual position that no records were available regarding the above tenancy before 1971 and no lease deed was placed on records. The Estate Officer also failed to appreciate that the said letters of M/s Lakhanpal Limited sending the payments and acceptance of rent thereof by the respondent No. 2 formed the part of records of the respondent No. 2 even prior to issuance of its two notices under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act dt. 14.12.1995 and 23.05.1997 were concealed by the respondent No. 2 and were revealed only pursuant to RTI Applications filed by the appellant. The Estate Officer did not examine the order of BIFR dt.05.10.1990 in case No. 286 of 1988 and also the letters dt. 08.06.1992, 23.11.1992, 10.11.1994, 10.02.1995, 13.03.1995 and 23.03.1995 wherein the appellant had specifically written to the respondent No. 2 seeking copies of the agreement/document of tenancy, which showed that the appellant was not even aware of the tenancy. The appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. has further taken the grounds that the respondent No. 2 was well aware that Mr. Anil Agarwal was illegally PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 14 of 41 occupying the said premises since 1988 and he was an employee of M/s Lakhanpal Ltd and as such there was no question of the said M/s Murphy India Limited nor the appellant to initiate any proceeding against the proforma respondent Mr. Anil Agarwal. It was obligatory on the LIC to initiate any such proceedings after having learnt about this fact in 1988. The respondent No.1/Estate Officer not only completely overlooked the facts available on record but also he did not bother to make proper enquiry and investigations into the facts of the matter. The Estate Officer also failed to issue proper notices as mandated under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Public Premises Act, 1971. The Estate officer erred in observing that the LIC had contended that M/s Lakhanpal Limited never wrote any letter with a request to the LIC to take possession of the said flat as letters dt. 01.01.1996 and 12.12.1997 were written by the said M/s Lakhanpal Limited whereunder the said M/s Lakhanpal Limited had unequivocally accepted that the said premises was given under tenancy to M/s Lakhanpal Limited. The Estate Officer wrongly concluded that there was no need to implead M/s Lakhanpal India Ltd. as a party to the said proceedings and failed to appreciate the fact that the said M/s Lakhanpal had claimed an interest in the tenancy of the said premises in its replies dt. 03.01.1996 and 28.06.1997 to the PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 15 of 41 notices of the respondent no. 2 dt. 14.12.1995 and 23.05.1997. The Estate Officer failed to appreciate that further notice dt. 23.05.1997 visavis the appellant was a null and void as there was no cause of action subsisting between the appellant and the respondent No. 2, as the notice dt.14.12.1995 by the respondent No.2 was replied by appellant accepting the termination, the notice to the appellant dt. 23.05.1997 was not maintainable in the eyes of law. It was obligatory upon the Estate Officer to call for and examine all records of the respondent No.2 and also call upon the said M/s Lakhanpal Limited u/s 4(2)(b)(ii) of the said Act and determine the important question in accordance with law. The respondent No.1/ Estate Officer erred in accepting the letters exchanged between M/s Murphy India Limited and the respondent No. 2 to conclude that the subject premises was let out to appellant. The Estate Officer grossly erred and misapplied the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucy Kochuvareed Vs. Mariappa Gounder and Others in AIR 1979 SC 1214, Chitturi Subhanna Vs. Kuddapa, (1995) 2 SCR 861 (AIR 1965 SC 1325), wherein it was held that wrongful possession of the defendant's is the very essence of a claim of mesne profits and the very foundation of the defendant's liability, as a rule therefore, liability to pay mesne profits goes with actual PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 16 of 41 possession of the land. The appellant, in the present appeal further referred the judgment in the case of Dunlop India Limited Vs. Bank of Baroda and Another in W.P. (C) 2659/2008; decided on 07.01.2009. The Estate Officer also failed to appreciate that since it was known to the respondent no.2 that Sh. Anil Aggarwal had been occupying the said premises since 1988, the LIC acquiesced the same and the possession would no more held to be illegal in 1995. The Estate Officer further failed to appreciate that the provisions of Public Premises Act, 1971 only states about an 'unauthorized occupant' and does not distinguish between any legal or illegal occupant. The Estate Officer also failed to appreciate that the notice of termination dt.14.12.1995 was accepted vide the letter dt. 23.05.1996 by the appellant and replied by M/s Lakhanpal Limited accepting that it had taken the suit premises under tenancy from the LIC. Therefore, there was no cause of action, whatsoever, that survived in favour of the respondent no. 2 on the notice dt.23.05.1997 as against the appellant whether as a tenant or an occupant. The Estate Officer further failed to appreciate the communications exchanged by the said M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. accepting the tenancy and claiming to have taken the suit premises under tenancy from respondent No.2 and mistook it to be letters from Mr. Anil Agarwal, for the PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 17 of 41 reasons best known to him, which can at most be considered as surmises and conjectures. The letters of M/s Lakhanpal Limited sending the rent payments were not accepted in evidence, whereas the letters of appellant sending the said payments were accepted. Similarly the claims of the appellant was grossly misinterpreted, while the justifiable claims of the said Ms/ Lakhanpal were overlooked. It was accepted and observed by the Estate Officer that the appellant was not an occupant after 1988, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid principles of law, the appellant could not be held liable for any damages. The notice dt. 14.12.1995 having been accepted by the appellant on 23.05.1996, the appellant could not be held to be the tenant thereafter and the notice dt. 23.05.1997 was a nullity in the eyes of law visavis the appellant. The Estate Officer by the impugned order has completely disregarded the additional documentary evidence submitted by the appellant under the additional affidavit of evidence dt. 20.09.2012. The Estate Officer failed to consider and appreciate the additional evidence which proves that the proceedings before the respondent no. 1 were farcial and malafide and vitiated by fraud and deceit and were designed to somehow frame the appellant and to protect; shield and benefit the true and original tenant M/s Lakhanpal Limited, despite its PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 18 of 41 acceptance and claims the tenancy was allotted to M/s Lakhanpal Limited in 1966 who had even approached the respondent No.2 with a revised terms for the extension of tenancy for a period of 11 years from 01.07.1997 i.e. from the date of termination under the second notice dt.23.05.1997 issued by the respondent No.2.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that the main challenge in PPA No. 34/2013 to the impugned order is that the appellant Sh. Anil Aggarwal had categorically informed the respondent that the premises in question have been vacated by him on 21.06.1997 i.e. much prior to the date 01.07.1997 from which date the alleged damages and electricity and water charges in respect of premises in question have been demanded. Sh. Anil Aggarwal took a plea that the premises in question was inspected by the officer of the petitioner corporation on 30.03.1995 and 12.10.1996. However, the said premises were never inspected by the officer of the petitioner corporation on 01.07.1997 or thereafter to verify as to who was in actual possession of the premises in question. PW1 admitted in his crossexamination that LIC of India has never demanded any rent from Sh. Anil Aggarwal nor any rent was paid by Sh. Anil Aggarwal to the petitioner corporation. No explanation or reason was given by the LIC of India as to why the notice of termination was issued by PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 19 of 41 the petitioner corporation on 14.12.1995 to M/s Lakhanpal Limited. The notice dt.14.12.1995 was never withdrawn by the petitioner corporation. The petitioner corporation at no point of time had issued any notice either to M/s Ceat Limited or M/s Murphy or M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. objecting to the occupation of the appellant of the premises in question. The Estate Officer failed to appreciate the reply dt. 28.06.1997 sent by M/s Lakhanpal Limited to Shri Mahender Singh, Legal Adviser, LIC, in response to his notice dt. 23.05.1997. The petitioner corporation had been accepting the rent and electricity and water charges from M/s Lakhanpal Limited. The rental amount and also the electricity and water charges were remitted by M/s Lakhanpal Limited to the petitioner corporation from time to time and said cheques are duly reflected in the ledgers showing the receipts of rent and water and electricity charges from M/s Lakhanpal Limited but the said records were never produced by the petitioner corporation in the proceedings before the Estate Officer. The premises in question were in use and occupation of M/s Lakhanpal Limited and the appellant was occupying the same as an officer of the said company. The appellant was successful in proving his case that he had vacated the premises in question on 21.06.1997 and had in fact shifted to his own property. Even in his reply dt.
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 20 of 41 14.10.1997, the appellant had advised LIC of India that the premises were in tenancy of M/s Lakhanpal Ltd who was in occupation of the premises in question. The onus was on LIC of India to prove its case and not on the appellant to prove that M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. was a tenant. PW1 in his crossexamination admitted that he did not inspect the property in suit to verify as to who is residing in the premises in question. The appellant cannot be made liable for any payment because of lapses on the part of LIC of India to prove its case and to establish that who was in occupation of the premises in question on 01.07.1997 or thereafter. The impugned order has been made in total disregard to the facts of the case and to benefit the LIC of India.
15. In the impugned order dated 01.07.2013, the Estate Officer observed that the suit premises is a public premises. Sh. Anil Aggarwal was occupying the said flat without any authority by the petitioner corporation to occupy. As such, he was an unauthorized occupant in public premises irrespective of that in what capacity he was occupying the same. M/s Ceat Ltd. surrendered their tenancy rights to the petitioner corporation. However, they had not fulfilled their obligation of handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the flat to the petitioner corporation. Hence, the said tenancy was deemed to be PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 21 of 41 terminated by the Estate Officer vide legal notice dt.23.05.1997 i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.1997. The Estate Officer also observed that Mr. Anil Aggarwal could not prove that M/s Lakhanpal Ltd had ever been the tenant of the petitioner corporation. The Estate Officer also inter alia held that the respondent No.2 became an unauthorized occupant in the flat in question w.e.f. 01.07.1997. The respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 both were equally responsible for not handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said flat to the petitioner corporation despite service of notice dt.23.05.1997 to them, as such, LIC of India is entitled for recovery of damages and interest accrued thereon at the awarded rate from both the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in equal half portions w.e.f. 01.07.1997 till 24.05.2001. The Estate Officer ordered the respondents i.e. M/s Ceat Limited and Mr. Anil Aggarwal, to pay damages @ Rs. 21,769.20 per month w.e.f. 01.07.1997 to 24.05.2001 jointly on account of their unauthorized occupation of the suit premises along with interest @ 10% per annum, electricity and water charges.
16. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. I have also perused the proceedings conducted by the Estate Officer.
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 22 of 41
17. The plea of Sh. H.L. Tiku, Ld. Senior Counsel for the appellant M/s Ceat Limited, is that M/s Murphy India Ltd. was amalgamated by virtue of order dated 31.08.1990 of Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("BIFR" in short). By virtue of operation of law, all the assets and liabilities of M/s Murphy India Ltd. stood transferred to M/s Ceat Ltd. and thereafter, M/s Ceat Ltd. started sending communications to the respondent / Life Insurance Corporation of India ("LIC of India"
in short) regarding tenancy of the demised premises. However, LIC of India never came forward and shared the documents relating to the terms and conditions of tenancy of the demised premises.
18. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. further submitted that the LIC of India in a handwritten note on the communication of M/s Ceat Ltd. dated 07.12.1992 had stated that the LIC of India has not approved the amalgamation process and stated that "The amalgamation of M/s Murphy India Ltd. with M/s Ceat Ltd. is yet to be approved by us for which letter has already been written".
19. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. further submitted that thereafter, the M/s Ceat Ltd. started sending rents PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 23 of 41 along with electricity and other charges to M/s LIC of India, but such rents and electricity charges were though received by M/s LIC of India but were kept in a suspense account.
20. The sum and substance of the plea of the Ld. Senior Counsel for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. is that the LIC of India never accepted M/s Ceat Ltd. as their tenant and therefore, M/s Ceat Ltd. has nothing to do with the demised premises and M/s Ceat Ltd. vide their communication dated 23.05.1996 i.e. before the initiation of the present proceeding in July 1997, stated that they have no interest or concern in the demised premises pursuant to the termination of the tenancy by the LIC of India vide notice dated 14.12.1995 w.e.f. 31.01.1996.
21. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. further submitted that a person or a company can be burdened with the liability to pay for the damages for the unauthorized occupation only if the said person or company has come into the possession of the demises premises without any authority or has continued to be in the occupation of the public premises after the authority to continue in the demised premises, has been withdrawn or determined.
22. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd.
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 24 of 41 further submitted that since M/s Ceat Ltd. has never come into the possession of the demised premises and therefore, they do not fall in the category of an unauthorized occupant as defined under Section 2(g) of the PP Act. Thus, M/s Ceat Ltd. cannot be fastened with the liability to pay damages under Section 7 of the PP Act. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. further submitted that in this regard, an application for impleadment of M/s Lakhan Pal Ltd. was also moved before the Estate Officer but the Estate Officer did not decide that application and proceeded to pass the impugned order.
23. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lucy Kochuvareed Vs. Mariappa Gounder and others AIR 1979 SC 1214. Ld. Sr. Advocate has submitted that in this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held that :
".........From a plain reading of this definition, it is clear that wrongful possession of the defendant is the very essence of a claim for mesne profits and the very foundation of the defendant's liability therefor. As a rule, therefore, liability to pay mesne profits goes with actual possession of the land. That is to say, generally, the person in wrongful possession and enjoyment of the immovable property is liable for mesne profits....."
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 25 of 41
24. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. further submitted that in the present case, since M/s Ceat Ltd. was never in the possession of the demised premises, they cannot be burdened with the liability to pay mesne profits or the damages.
25. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shangrila Food Products Ltd and another Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another (1996) 5 SCC 54. Ld. Sr. Advocate has submitted that in said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held as under :
"........Likewise, an unauthorized occupant of any public premises may be required by the Estate Officer to pay damages within such time and in such installments as may be stipulated in the order. Of course, the Estate Officer in assessing damages would have regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed as also to assess damages on account of use and occupation of such premises. It is thus plain and clear that unless the occupant is first adjudged as an unauthorized occupant, his liability to pay damages does not arise......
.......The question of claim to damages and their ascertainment would only arise in the event of the Life Insurance Corporation, respondent, succeeding to prove that the appellant Company was an unlawful subtenant and therefore in unauthorized occupation of PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 26 of 41 public premises. If the findings were go to in favour of the appellant Company and it is proved to be a lawful subtenant and hence, not an unauthorized occupant, the direction to adjudge the claim for damages would be rendered sterile and otiose. It is only in the event of the appellant company being held to be an unlawful subtenant and hence an unauthorized occupant that the claim for damages would be determinable....."
26. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. further submitted that since M/s Ceat Ltd. had never been in occupation of the demised premises and therefore, there is no question of them being declared as an unauthorized occupant of the demised premises. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant submitted that even in the pleadings, M/s LIC of India has never submitted that the M/s Ceat Ltd. has ever remained in the possession of the demised premises.
27. Sh. M.K. Awatney, Ld. Counsel for the appellant Sh. Anil Aggarwal has submitted that the appellant was in the possession of the demised premises as the Regional Manager of M/s Lakhan Pal Ltd. and there was no privity of contract between him and M/s LIC of India. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the appellant Sh. Anil Aggarwal had vacated the premises on 21.06.1997 and even as per the case of M/s LIC of India, the entire damages, electricity or water charges have been claimed PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 27 of 41 after 30.06.1997. Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the entire dispute pertains to the period after the appellant Sh. Anil Agarwal vacated the demised premises, and therefore, any demand raised against him by the Estate Officer is contrary to the facts on record. Ld. Counsel further submitted that he had mentioned everything in detail in his reply dated 14.10.1997 to the Estate Officer, but the Estate Officer did not take anything on record and mechanically passed the impugned order attributing 50% of the liability to his client Sh. Anil Aggarwal. In the written submission, Ld. Counsel for the appellant Sh. Anil Aggarwal has also submitted that even the notice of termination of tenancy Ex. R2/W1/3 was served upon M/s Lakhan Pal Ltd. by the M/s LIC of India.
28. Ld. Counsel for the appellant Sh. Anil Aggarwal has further submitted that vide an internal communication dated 26.06.1997, M/s Lakhan Pal Ltd. has specifically informed that Sh. Anil Aggarwal has vacated the demised premises on 21.06.1997.
29. Sh. Vivek Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/LIC of India, has submitted that the Estate Officer has passed the impugned order legally after going through the record and there PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 28 of 41 is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Estate Officer. Ld. Counsel submitted that the short question in the present case is that who was the tenant in the demised premises. Ld. Counsel for the LIC of India has further submitted that there are ample documents on record to show that the premises was let out by M/s LIC of India to M/s Murphy India Ltd. It is also an admitted fact that the premises in dispute was let out before 1971, but there is no document of tenancy prior to 1971 available either on record or with the parties.
30. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/LIC of India has taken this court through various communications from 23.09.1971 till 17.09.1998, vide which the rents were paid by M/s Murphy India Ltd to M/s LIC of India. The documents to this effect have also been placed by the Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant/Ceat Ltd.
31. Ld. Counsel for the LIC of India has further submitted that for the first time in December, 1991 vide communication dated 20.12.1991, M/s Ceat Ltd. tendered a demand draft bearing No. 661249 dated 11.12.1991 for Rs. 1,213.86 towards rent for the period of October and November, 1991 and thereafter, M/s Ceat Ltd. started communicating with M/s LIC vide communication dated 23.11.1992 and various other PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 29 of 41 communications, vide which M/s LIC of India was requested by M/s Ceat Ltd. for providing a copy of the rent agreement for the demised premises. The rent was thereafter tendered continuously by M/s Ceat Ltd. to M/s LIC of India.
32. Ld. Counsel for the M/s LIC of India further submitted that the handwritten note dated 07.12.1992, as relied upon by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant / M/s Ceat Ltd, is not disputed. Ld. Counsel further submitted that vide letter dated 30.11.1992, M/s LIC of India has written that amalgamation of M/s Murphy India Ltd. with M/s LIC of India is not approved. However, Ld. Counsel has submitted that it was by virtue of operation of law, and all the assets and liabilities including the tenancy of the demised premises had come to the share of M/s Ceat Ltd., therefore, it would not make any difference whether M/s LIC of India accepted this amalgamation or not.
33. Ld. Counsel for M/s LIC of India has also invited the attention of this court to various communications of M/s Ceat Ltd. sent to M/s LIC of India i.e. 15.12.1992, 26.02.1993, 05.05.1994, 11.06.1994, 14.07.1994, 10.08.1994, 12.09.1994 & 17.10.1994, whereby the rents were tendered by M/s Ceat Ltd. to M/s LIC of India and even thereafter, vide communication dated PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 30 of 41 21.11.1994, 26.12.1994, 05.01.1995 and 30.01.1995, the rents were tendered by M/s Ceat Ltd. to M/s LIC of India.
34. Ld. Counsel for M/s LIC of India has also invited the attention of this court to the communication dated 05.01.1995 whereby M/s Ceat Ltd. has specifically stated that rented premises is occupied by them at Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Similarly, in the communication dated 30.01.1995, M/s Ceat Ltd. has again stated that the rented premises is occupied by them at Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Thereafter, also, vide communication dated 10.02.1995, 09.10.1996, 10.04.1997, 19.05.1997 and 27.06.1997, the rents of the tenanted premises were continuously tendered by M/s Ceat Ltd. to M/s LIC of India.
35. Ld. Counsel for M/s LIC of India further submitted that M/s Ceat Ltd. also served a notice dated 16.11.1992 upon Sh. Anil Aggarwal, whereby the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. has stated that tenancy of the demised premises has been vested in them by virtue of order of the BIFR dated 31.08.1990.
36. Ld. Counsel for M/s LIC of India has further submitted that they have served a notice on M/s Ceat Ltd. and Mr. Anil PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 31 of 41 Aggarwal vide communication dated 14.12.1995 whereby they had written that the premises was let out to M/s Lakhan Pal Ltd. due to sheer mistake, but it was corrected in the subsequent notice dated 23.05.1996 stating therein that the premises was let out to M/s Murphy India Ltd. and by virtue of BIFR, all interest have been vested in M/s Ceat Ltd. In the said communication, it was also stated by the M/s Ceat Ltd. that the tenancy had come to an end on 31.01.1996 and they confirmed that they have no interest in the said premises pursuant to the termination of tenancy vide notice dated 14.12.1995. It has been further mentioned in the said communication that since Mr. Anil Aggarwal was in wrongful and illegal possession of the demised premises, the LIC of India may take such proceedings as are available in law for evicting him and take over the possession of the premises from him.
37. The attention of the court was also invited to the notice dated 28.06.1997 which was being served upon M/s LIC of India by Sh. Anil Aggarwal, whereby Sh. Anil Aggarwal has disputed the claim of the tenancy by M/s Lakhan Pal Ltd.
38. Ld. Counsel for M/s LIC of India has further submitted that the plea of the appellant Sh. Anil Aggarwal that he had PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 32 of 41 surrendered/handed over the premises on 21.06.1997 is wrong and has invited the attention of this court to the document dated 24.05.2001 whereby the keys of the aforesaid premises was given to M/s LIC of India and the said letter was signed by Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Care Taker and below his signature, the name of Mr. Anil Agarwal has been written.
39. The Public Premises Act has been enacted for eviction of unauthorized occupants from Public Premises and for certain incidental matters. The "unauthorised occupation" has been defined in Section 2(g) PP Act, which reads as under: "2(g) "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever."
40. The bare perusal of this Section would indicate that a person allotted the accommodation will fall into the category of unauthorized occupant only if either his allotment has been cancelled or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. A person would also deem to be unauthorized occupant in a public premises if he or she is in occupation without any authority for PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 33 of 41 such occupation.
41. Section 8 PP Act deals with the powers of the Estate Officers which reads as under: "8.Power of estate officers.An estate officer shall, for the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) any other matter which may be prescribed."
42. Bare reading of Section 8 PP Act would indicate that the Estate Officer is required to take the entire evidence on record along with the documents and even the Estate Officer has been given powers to summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him on oath besides discovery and production of documents. If the statute confers a power on any authority, it has some meaning. It is also pertinent to mention here that the proceedings conducted by the Estate Officer are quasi judicial in nature as has been held in M/s Blaze and Central (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 Karnataka 186, wherein it was held as under :
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 34 of 41 " 13 ........ The Estate Officer must hold an enquiry as required under S. 4 of the Act, read with the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules 1971. R. 5 of the Rules provides that the Estate Officer shall record the summary of the evidence tendered before him and the summary of such evidence and any relevant documents filed before him shall form part of the record of the proceedings.
Exercise of the power under the Act is undoubtedly quasijudicial. The petitioner has a right to be heard before the Estate Officer and if the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right to know the evidence of the opposite side. The petitioner must therefore be told what evidence has been given or what statements have been made by the opposite side. In other words, to put it shortly, the petitioner must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict the statements recorded or the evidence ..........."
43. Thus, the Estate Officer cannot mechanically pass an order without taking into the account the documents placed by the appellant. In an enquiry conducted by Estate Officer, the principle of natural justice has to be followed.
44. In the present case, the premises in dispute was given on rent before 1971 but none of the parties have been able to produce any document to show that initially to whom the premises was let out, however, there are ample documents on record after 1971. The rent of the premises in question was paid by M/s Murphy India to the LIC of India regularly. It is also an PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 35 of 41 admitted fact that vide order dated 31.08.1990 of BIFR, M/s Murphy India Ltd. stood amalgamated with M/s Ceat Ltd. and by virtue of the same, all the assets and liabilities of M/s Murphy India Ltd. stood vested with M/s Ceat Ltd. It is also a matter of record that thereafter, M/s Ceat Ltd. has been writing several communications to M/s LIC of India claiming the tenancy rights over the demised premises. Further, the rents were being tendered by them to M/s LIC of India.
45. The plea of the Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd. that this tenancy was never accepted by M/s LIC of India or that the rent was kept in a suspense account would be of no purpose. By virtue of operation of law, the tenancy rights of the demised premises vested in M/s Ceat Ltd. Rather, vide various communications, as referred hereinabove, M/s Ceat Ltd. had been stating to M/s LIC of India that they are in occupation of the premises in question. Therefore, M/s Ceat Ltd. cannot escape from the liability of being a tenant of the premises in question. Therefore, M/s Ceat Ltd., by virtue of operation of law, came into occupation of the premises in question as per Section 2(g) of the PP Act and since by virtue of letter dated 14.12.1995, which was subsequently corrected vide letter dated 23.05.1996, the tenancy in respect of the demised premises was terminated PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 36 of 41 and M/s Ceat Ltd. and Sh. Anil Aggarwal fouled to handover the possession, they became unauthorised occupant.
46. The Estate Officer has duly decided the application filed by the appellant M/s Ceat Ltd for impleadment of M/s Lakhan Pal Ltd and interalia held that since neither M/s Ceat Ltd. nor Mr. Anil Aggarwal has been able to prove that demised premises was letout to M/s Lakhan Pal Ltd. and therefore, he is not a necessary party.
47. M/s Ceat Ltd. came into constructive possession of the demised premises immediately after the amalgamation, and therefore, it is not necessary that M/s Ceat Ltd. should have been in physical possession to make them liable for damages.
48. The Estate Officer has dealt with this issue in detail and has returned a reasoned finding that M/s Ceat Ltd. came into the legal possession by virtue of amalgamation. It is also pertinent to mention here that after writing several communications to M/s LIC of India claiming tenancy of the demises premises, M/s Ceat Ltd. is now estopped from taking a plea that they had nothing to do with the premises.
49. The Estate Officer has also dealt with the issue of unauthorized occupation in detail. LIC of India determined the PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 37 of 41 tenancy of the demised premises initially by a notice dated 14.12.1995. M/s Ceat Ltd. on receipt of this notice immediately surrendered their tenancy. However, the possession of the demised premises was never handed over to M/s LIC of India Ltd. Subsequently, on account of an error in notice dated 14.12.1995, the M/s LIC of India Ltd. issued further notice dated 23.05.1996 in suppression of earlier notice dated 14.12.1995 and determined the tenancy w.e.f. 01.06.1997. This time also neither M/s Ceat Ltd. nor Mr. Anil Agarwal handed over the possession of the demised premises to M/s LIC of India Ltd. The plea of Mr. Anil Agarwal that he surrendered the possession to M/s Lakhan Pal Ltd. is of no consequences unless it is delivered to M/s LIC of India Ltd. The possession of M/s Ceat Ltd. and Mr. Anil Agarwal became unauthorized w.e.f. 01.07.1997.
50. The plea of appellant Sh. Anil Aggarwal that he vacated the premises on 21.06.1997 also does not hold any force as the communication written is only the communication between Mr. Anil Agarwal and M/s Lakhan Pal Ltd. The premises in question was admittedly handed over to M/s LIC of India only on 24.05.2001. Admittedly, the subject matter of the impugned order is the damages and other charges w.e.f. 01.07.1997 to 24.05.2001.
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 38 of 41
51. The Estate Officer in the present case has passed a very detailed and reasoned order in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to mention here that it is an admitted case that the demised premises was let out by the petitioner corporation before 1971, however, there is no document with any of the parties regarding the same. It is also an admitted case that there is no lease deed or any other document regarding the tenancy of the demised premises. The plea of the petitioner corporation is that the premises in dispute was let out to M/s Murphy India Ltd. and after amalgamation of the same with M/s Ceat Ltd., the petitioner corporation had become the landlord qua the demised premises to M/s Ceat Ltd. The plea of the respondent is that the premises in dispute was let out to M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. and therefore, M/s Ceat has no concern whatsoever in the demised premises and similarly, the respondent no.2 was residing in the demises premises under the authority of M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. and therefore, there was no privity of contract between the petitioner corporation and Mr. Anil Agarwal. It is an admitted case that neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 has placed any document on record to show that the premises in dispute was let out to M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. On the contrary, M/s Ceat Ltd. after the amalgamation has been claiming PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 39 of 41 the tenancy of the demised premises by virtue of operation of law. M/s Ceat Ltd. only at the later stage took a contradictory plea that it has no concern whatsoever with the demised premises. The respondents also relied upon certain accounting transactions between M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. and M/s Murphy India Ltd., however, since LIC is not a party to such transactions, these transactions alone cannot be sufficient to prove that the premises was let out to M/s Lakhanpal Ltd. There is also substance in the contention of the petitioner corporation that merely by virtue of reply of respondent no.1 to the notice dated 14.12.1995 that they have no interest in the demises premises, respondent no.1 cannot run away from his responsibility. The tenant after the termination of tenancy is under legal bounden duty to handover the vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord. The petitioner corporation had been stating constantly that notice dated 14.12.1995 was issued under mistake and this was rectified by another notice dated 23.05.1997 The tenancy of the demises premises was terminated vide notice dated 23.05.1997 w.e.f. 01.07.1997. The respondents failed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the demises premises to the petitioner corporation and therefore, both of them became unauthorized occupant w.e.f. 01.07.1997.
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 40 of 41
52. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I consider that there is no substance in the aforesaid appeals preferred by the appellant Sh. Anil Agarwal and M/s Ceat Ltd. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. Estate Officer, dated 01.07.2013. Both the appeals are accordingly, dismissed.
53. Estate Officer's records along with copy of the judgment be sent back to the Estate Officer and thereafter, the appeal files be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2020.03.02
SHARMA 17:03:04 +0530
Announced in open court (DINESH KUMAR SHARMA)
on 02.03.2020. District & Sessions Judge/
Appellate Authority : New Delhi
PPA No. 165/2016 (Old No. 34/13) Sh. Anil Aggarwal Vs. LIC of India AND PPA No. 177/2016 (Old No. 35/13) M/s Ceat Ltd. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. Page No. 41 of 41