Delhi District Court
M/S Kirloskar Brothers Limited vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 24 February, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI H.S. SHARMA: DISTRICT JUDGE
NEW DELHI
I. Unique ID No. 02403C0083392011
PPA No. 42/11
M/s Kirloskar Brothers Limited,
Ground Floor,
Jeevan Tara Building,
5, Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001 ........ Appellant.
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Having its Northern Zonal Office at
Jeevan Tara Building, TowerII,
124, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi - 110001 ............. Respondent
Date of institution of the appeal : 17/11/2011
Date on which it was received in this court: 18/11/2011
Date of hearing arguments : 07/02/2012
Date of announcement of order : 24/02/2012
District Judge/PHC/ND
24/2/2012
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC
Page No. 1 of 13
2
II. Unique ID No. 02403C0083402011
PPA No. 43/11
M/s Kirloskar Brothers Limited,
Ground Floor,
Jeevan Tara Building,
5, Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001 ........ Appellant.
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Having its Northern Zonal Office at
Jeevan Tara Building, TowerII,
124, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi - 110001 ............. Respondent
Date of institution of the appeal : 17/11/2011
Date on which it was received in this court: 18/11/2011
Date of hearing arguments : 07/02/2012
Date of announcement of order : 24/02/2012
Present: Sh Bahar Barqi and Sh M.Ahmed, Advocates for the appellant.
Sh G.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
District Judge/PHC/ND
24/2/2012
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC
Page No. 2 of 13
3
JUDGEMENT:
1 This judgment shall dispose off two appeals which bear PPA No. 42/11 and 43/11. Both these appeals have arisen from the order dated 2/11/2011 passed by the Ld. Estate Officer. 2 The respondent is a body corporate, constituted and established by the LIC of India Act 1956. It had rented out an area ad measuring 4448 Sq ft of ground floor of Jeevantara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi (in short "the premises in dispute") w.e.f. 1/2/2007 for a period of three years at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,60,625/ (excluding electricity and water charges). Thus, the tenancy was upto 31/1/2010. A lease deed had been executed and registered on 2/3/2007. After 31/1/2010 no fresh lease deed had been executed. Since the appellant did not vacate the premises in dispute inspite of notice of termination of tenancy dated 10/4/2010, therefore, an application u/ss 5 and 7 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 (in short 'the act') dated 30/11/2010 was filed against the appellant. In the application it was District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 3 of 13 4 prayed that the appellant be directed to pay damages @ 255 per sq ft per month from 1/5/2010 onwards with interest, till the actual delivery of possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent. 3 Vide the impugned order the appellant was ordered to be evicted. It was also directed to pay the damages. 4 In respect of the order passed u/s 5 of the Act, an appeal which bears no. 42/11, was filed. The appeal bearing no. 43/11 is against the order vide which the appellant had been directed to pay the damages.
5 Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent appears to be interested in increasing the rate of rent of the premises in dispute, therefore, let the matter be sent to the Mediator for deciding the same. It has been submitted that if the court feels that there is no need to send the matter to the Mediator, then in that case the facts would show that the respondent had, from time to time increased the rent (as mentioned in para 25 of the appeal). It has been submitted that the guidelines have been laid down in the gazette notification after the same had been discussed District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 4 of 13 5 by both houses of the Parliament. Therefore, the respondent is bound to follow the guidelines particularly the guidelines contained in clauses II and III. The appellant is prepared to pay the charges @ Rs. 100 per sq. ft per month. This offer has neither been rejected nor accepted till date by the respondent. LIC is an instrumentality of the State, therefore, any action to be taken by it has to be reasonable and not unfair or arbitrary. 6 It has been submitted that Bombay High Court in Persis Kothawalla Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India 2004 BCR4610 had dealt with these aspects in paras 62, 66, 68 and 71 of its judgment. The respondent (LIC) in that case had filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP No. 22904/04 vide order dated 19/11/2004. Therefore, the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in Kothawalla's case (supra) have to be followed by the respondent. Reliance has been placed on Banatwala & Companay Vs. LIC of India & Anr, Civil Appeal no. 7171/2010 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19/9/2011 and District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 5 of 13 6 Damayanti Verma through LR's Vs. LIC and Anr W.P (C) 4342 /2007 decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 25/7/2011. It has been submitted that the impugned order is based on the arbitrariness of the respondent.
7 I have considered the submissions and have gone through the file.
8 These very arguments had infact been advanced before the Ld. Estate Officer. Fortunately, the Ld. Estate Officer had dealt with each and every argument and had given cogent reasons to discard the same. It is well settled that if the findings arrived at by the lower court are to be endorsed by the superior court, then in that case there is no need to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court. Reliance can be placed on Girija Nandini Vs. B.N.Chaudhary AIR 1967 SC 1124.
9 All the same I would like to deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.
10 A judgment can't be applied in a mechanical manner. First of all it has to be found out as to whether the facts of the case cited District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 6 of 13 7 by the party are identical to the facts of the case to which the judgement is intended to be applied. It was for this reason that the Hon'ble High Court in Laxman Dass Bhatia Hingwala vs. Asstt. Commissioner 2011 (1) AD (D) 537, observed as under: " A judgment has to be read in the context and discerning of factual background is necessary to understand the statement of principle laid down therein. It is obligatory to ascertain the true principle laid down in the decision and it is inappropriate to expand the principle to include what has not been stated therein. (para 25).
It was further held that "the decision is only an authority for what it actually decides and it is the duty to ascertain the real concrete or the ratio decidendi which has the binding effect. While dealing with the principle of precedent it is to be borne in mind that a judgment is neither to be read as Euclid's theorem nor is to be read out of context (para 26)."
11 In K.D.Dewan vs. H.S. Parihar 2001 IX AD (SC) 307 it was held as under: District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 7 of 13 8 ''in order to understand a judgment, it is necessary to look into factual context of such judgment. "
12 In Parsa Raja Vs. State 2003 IX AD (SC) 31 it was held as under: "a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant deal may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases one should avoid temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the color of one case with the color of another".
13 The judgments cited by ld. Counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the tenancy had come to an end on 31/1/2010. No fresh lease deed had been executed.
14 In Banatwala's case (supra) the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the provisions for fixation of standard rent, and provisions prescribing other obligations for the landlord such as maintenance of essential services under the District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 8 of 13 9 concerned Rent Control Act namely Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 were applicable in respect of Public Premises owned by a corporation such as the Life Insurance Corporation of India which was otherwise coverable by the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. However, in the present appeals this question is not before the court. Any observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in the context of the judgment rendered in Banatwala's case, can't be read out of context, as has been done by ld. Counsel for the appellant. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided the question which has been reproduced above.
15 In Damayanti Verma's case (supra) the eviction of the tenanted portion had been sought by the Life Insurance Company on the ground that it required the premises for its bonafide use. The tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 121997 / 621997. The Hon'ble High Court had incorporated (in para 4) the factual background. In para 14 of the judgment, the Hon'ble High court had formulated two issues. In para 16, the Hon'ble High Court District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 9 of 13 10 had discussed the legal preposition. In para 21, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the Life Insurance Company had failed to prove its bonafide need. In view of these facts the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court.
16 So far as the argument that the respondent can't be allowed to commercialize the tenancy is concerned, this particular argument had been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jeevan Das vs. LIC (1994 SCC Suppl VOL.III 694) wherein it was held as under: "Equally the definition of the public premises 'unauthorized occupation' under section 2 (g) of the Act, postulates that the tenancy "has been determined for any reason whatsoever". When the statute has advisedly given wide power to the Public authorities under the Act to determine the tenancy, it is not permissible to cut down the width of the power by reading into it the reasonable and justifiable grounds for initiating action for terminating the tenancy under section 106 of the T.P. Act. If it is so District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 10 of 13 11 read section 106 of T.P Act and section 2 (g) of the Act would become ultra views. The statute advisedly empowered the authority to act in the public interest and determine the tenancy or leave and license before taking action under section 5 of the Act. If the contention of the appellant is given acceptance he would be put in a higher pedestal than a statutory tenant under the Rent Act. Take for example that a premises is let out at a low rent years back like the present one. The rent is unrealistic, with a view to revise adequate market rent tenant became liable to ejectment. The contention then is action is violative of Art. 21 offending of right of livelihood. This contention too is devoid of any substance. An owner is entitled to deal with his property in his own way profitable in its use and occupation. A public authority is equally entitled to use the public property to the best advantage as a commercial venture. As an integral incidence of ejectment of a tenant / licenser is inevitable. So the doctrine of livelihood cannot indiscriminately be extended to the area of commercial operation. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contentions of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 11 of 13 12 dismissed. No costs"
17 So far as the argument that the respondent are bound to follow the guidelines is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. Nusli.N. Wadia (2008) 3 SCC 279 had observed that "issuance of guidelines is not being controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the tenant." 18 So far as the offer of the appellant to pay charges @ Rs. 100/ per sq. ft per month is concerned, it is for the respondent to decide. No direction in this regard can be given to the respondent. 19 From the facts of this case it can't be said that the act of the respondent is either arbitrary or whimsical or unfair or unreasonable.
20 No other argument was advanced.
21 There is no merit in both the appeals. 22 Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed in their entirety. Appellant is given 15 days time to comply with the order of District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 12 of 13 13 Ld. Estate Officer.
23 TCR be sent back with the copy of the judgement. 24 Appeal files be consigned to the record room. Announced in open court on dated 24/2/2012 (H.S.SHARMA) DISTRICT JUDGE/NEW DELHI 24/2/2012 All pages signed.
24/2/2012 District Judge/PHC/ND 24/2/2012 Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. LIC Page No. 13 of 13