Allahabad High Court
Punjab National Bank vs Shri Baldeo Ji Maharaj Trust on 31 January, 2013
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 7 [A.F.R.] Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25670 of 2002 Petitioner :- Punjab National Bank Respondent :- Shri Baldeo Ji Maharaj Trust Petitioner Counsel :- Ramesh Singh,K.L. Grover Respondent Counsel :- Neeraj Agrawal,N.K. Srivastava,SC Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1.Heard Mr Ramesh Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner-Bank and perused the record.
2.It is contended that petitioner, namely, Punjab National Bank, is a public sector undertaking and, as such, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as " Act, 1972") is not applicable to the building occupied by it. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision in Om Kumar Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, reported in 1980 ARC 146.
3.This writ petition is directed against order dated 3.4.1989 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, (hereafter referred to as RCEO), determining rent of the building in dispute at Rs. 3200/- per month w.e.f. September, 1987, plus water tax and drainage tax as fixed by Nagar Mahapalika and Jal Sansthan of Kanpur Nagar under section 21 (8) of Act, 1972 and appellate order dated 2.2.2002 passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar, dismissing petitioner's Rent Appeal No. 65 of 1989.
4.The property in dispute (premises no. 8/15, Arya Nagar, Kanpur) is owned by Sri Baldeo Ji Maharaj Trust Virajman Mandir Trust, respondent, which is in tenancy of petitioner, Punjab National Bank.
5.There is no dispute regarding ownership of the property in dispute and the factum that the petitioner is the tenant therein and the respondent is landlord.
6.The only question arises whether application filed on 12.8.1987 by respondent-landlord under section 21(8) of Act, 1972, was maintainable.
7.It is contended that the premises under tenancy of petitioner, being a Public building, hence under section 2(1)(a) is exempted from the provisions of Act, 1972, hence rent under section 21(8) of Act, 1972, cannot be determined by RCEO. The orders impugned are wholly without jurisdiction and for this proposition he relied on Om Kumar Vs. District Judge (supra).
8.It is not disputed before this Court that petitioner-Bank is "a Public Sector Corporation" wholly owned and controlled by the Central Government, as held by Division Bench in Om Kumar Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others (supra). In paragraph 6 of the above judgement, holding that Punjab National Bank itself is a public sector corporation, this Court said:
"6. The above provisions clearly indicate that the banks mentioned in the First Schedule are public sector corporations wholly owned and controlled by the Central Government. It may be that in the day to day working of the nationalised banks, as in the case of other banks, some control is exercised by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act but that would not change the intrinsic nature of the banks specified in First Schedule appended to Act 5 of 1970. The entire assets these banks vest in the Central Government and the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of these banks is under the control of the Central Government in accordance with the scheme framed by it for which approval of both Houses of Parliament is obtained. In our opinion, the learned Judge rightly took the view that the building in question is a public building and the Act is not applicable to it."
9.Now coming to the other part of the submission for which the reliance has been placed on Om Kumar Vs. District Judge (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to appreciate that section 2(1)(a) was amended by U.P. Act No. 17 of 1985 w.e.f. 18.5.1983 and the exemption of the Act in respect to the Public buildings now is confined to only such buildings in which public sector Corporation is an owner or landlord.
10.Earlier to the amendment by U.P. Act No. 17 of 1985, Section 2(1)(a) read as :
"2. (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to ....
(a) any public building:"
11.The term 'public building' was defined in section 3(o) and the term 'public sector corporation' was defined in section 3(p). Since vide U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976, Section 2(1)(a), as inserted, all the public building, as defined in section 3(p) were exempted, this Court in Om Kumar Vs. District Judge (supra) held that determination of rent under section 21(8) cannot be made in view of section 2(1)(a) as substituted by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976. This Court found that the amendments made in 1976 were totally clumsy and confusing legislation.
12.The legislature thereafter further intervened and U.P. Act No. 17 of 1985 was passed, which has come into effect with effect from 18.5.1983. Section 2(1)(a) now reads:
"2. Exemptions from operation of Act-- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following namely:-
(a) any building of which the Government or a local authority or a public sector corporation or a Cantonment Board is the landlord; or "
13.In the case in hand, petitioner-Bank is a tenant. Section 2(1)(a) as amended w.e.f. 18.5.1983 thus does not get attracted in the present case. It cannot be doubted that it is the amended provision of section 2(1)(a), as came to exist by U.P. Act No. 17 of 1985, which was holding field when application under section 21(8) was made in 1987 by respondent-landlord, in the case in hand.
14.It is really strange and surprising that the learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of preparing the case properly in the light of the amended provision, sought to place reliance on an authority of this Court which was decided considering, earlier provision, and not the provision which was on the statute book, when application was filed by respondent-landlord. This is highly deprecable and shows lack of seriousness on the part of the learned counsel.
15.Moreover, the judgement Om Kumar Vs. District Judge (supra) has been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Sheo Chaudhary and another Vs. District Judge, Allahabad and others, reported in 1982 (1) ARC 441, The Full Bench recorded its disagreement with the view taken in Om Kumar Vs. District Judge (supra) that deletion of clauses (ii) and (iv) of explanation of section 21 has rendered Section 21(8) meaningless.
16.Then again interpretation of section 21(8) came up before another Full Bench in Punjab Nation Bank, New Delhi Vs. Sugan Chandra and another, reported in 1985 (1) ARC 215, and here again interpretation given by Division Bench in Om Kumar (supra) on section 21(8), has been disagreed and overruled. The Court has affirmed State of U.P. and others Vs. P.P. Eye Hospital and Nursing Home, Moradabad and others, reported in 1984 (2) ARC 438.
17.Here again it is really surprising that a counsel appearing on behalf of a public sector corporation is citing a judgment which has already been overruled by two Full Bench decisions and had also rendered, even otherwise, inapplicable due to subsequent amendment in section 21(1)(a).
18.To me, it appears that an attempt has been made to mislead the Court. This attempt is nothing but an audacity and, therefore, not only the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, but with exemplary cost, which I quantify at Rs. 25,000/-.
19.In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed, with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
Order Date :- 31.1.2013 sks-grade iv