Delhi District Court
M/S. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs . Smt. Prabhawati & Ors. on 31 May, 2011
M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVEDRA KR. SHARMA
ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER, DISTRICT: NORTH: DELHI.
E No. 39-A/2007
Unique Case ID No: 02401C1116212007
1. M/S. TEXMACO LTD.
Registered Office,
At Belgharia, Calcutta-700056.
2. M/S. BIRLA TEXTILES
(Changed name of the erstwhile company
The Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.)
A Unit of M/s. Texmaco Ltd:
P. O. Birla Lines, Old Subzi Mandi,
Delhi-110007. ...Petitioners.
Versus
1. SMT. PRABHA WATI
Wd/o. Sh. Amba Prasad
2. SMT. RAJANI
D/o. Sh. Amba Prasad
3. SH. AJEET
S/o. Sh. Amba Prasad
4. SH. AMRISH
S/o. Sh. Amba Prasad
5. SH. ASHOK
S/o. Sh. Amba Prasad
E no. 39A/2007 Page 1/12
M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
All Residents of Quarter no. 15/177,
New Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi-110007. ...Respondents.
Date of institution of the petition : 03/04/1980
Date on which order was reserved : 12/05/2011
Date of Decision : 31/05/2011
JUDGMENT
31/05/2011 Vide this judgment, I shall decide the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner U/Sec. 14 (1) (i) and 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as D.R.C. Act, 1958).
Brief history of the case are as follows:-
That the present petition was filed on behalf of Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. against the respondent and vide judgment dated 06/07/1996 an eviction order was passed by the Ld. Predecessor Court which order was challenged before the Court of Ld. ARCT and the eviction order was set aside vide order dated 06/10/1998 observing that the parties may be allowed to lead or rebut the evidence pertaining to Power of Attorney only and thereafter vide order dated 12/11/2003 the present eviction petition was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and against the E no. 39A/2007 Page 2/12 M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
dismissal order an appeal was filed and vide order dated 12/05/2007, Ld. ARCT has remanded back the case for hearing afresh and to decide on merits except the issue of authorization/power of attorney which was observed to have been settled in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 16/10/2006.
Relevant facts for disposal of the present application are as follows:-
1. That the petition was filed with the allegation that petitioner company is the landlord and respondent was allotted and let out one complete quarter bearing Pvt. no.
177, Line no. 14, in the residential colony commonly known as New Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-07 in the Municipal Ward no. 12 comprising of one room measuring 12'X10', one verandah measuring 12'X6' and one courtyard measuring 12'X10' as shown in the red colour in the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') at monthly rent of Rs. 3.75 paise and the said premises was allotted/ let to the respondent as service tenancy exclusively for his own residence by virtue of his being in the service and employment of the petitioner at that time and for the period of his service only and the terms and conditions as E no. 39A/2007 Page 3/12 M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
agreed between him and the petitioner among others that he would deliver vacant possession of the allotted premises to the petitioner within 04 days of his ceasing to be in the petitioner's employment and tenancy was to commenced on the first day of each calender month and there was no need to issue notice of termination after the cessation of the employment of the respondent and respondent ceased to be employed from 01/04/1979 as a result of his retirement but has not delivered the possession so far hence, the present petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (j) of the DRC Act.
2. It is further alleged that petitioner is a limited company and corporate body duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the premises was exclusively allotted and let out to the respondent being employee and despite cessation of employment on 01/04/1979 possession has not been delivered therefore, respondent is also liable to be evicted from the suit premises U/Sec. 22 of the DRC Act as the same is required to be petitioners for allotment of other employees.
3. During the pending proceedings petition was amended and M/s. Tex Maco Ltd. was added as petitioner no. 1.
4. Upon the service of summons, respondent (since deceased) filed his W. S. wherein he raised preliminary objections that the E no. 39A/2007 Page 4/12 M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
petition is not maintainable as the respondent was not in occupation of the suit premises in lieu of his service but he was/is a contractual tenant, no notice as required under the law has been served and the demised premises is situated in Slum Area and requisite permission has not been obtained from the Competent Authority and on merits has not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, extent of tenancy but has denied again that the suit property was allotted/let out because of his employment with the petitioner's Company or there was any terms and conditions to vacate the premises within 04 days from the date of retirement and employment and tenancy both are different and independent and has alleged that respondent joined the service of the petitioner in the year 1936 and the suit premises was let out to him in the year 1935 and since then he is residing in the suit premises as a regular contractual tenant and later on W. S. was amended consequent to the amendment in petition and addition of petitioner no. 1 as party and the preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioners are not the owners of the premises in dispute and therefore, petition on the ground of bonafide requirement is not maintainable and deceased respondent was contractual tenant and statement was recorded during his lifetime by Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Ld. ARC, Delhi and since no notice was given of termination of tenancy during the lifetime of original respondent and therefore, tenancy has been inherited by the Legal heirs of deceased respondent.
E no. 39A/2007 Page 5/12M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
5. Replication to the W. S. was filed denying all the preliminary objections as well as allegations on merits and reiterating moreover the same facts as alleged in the petition.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties and have perused the record carefully.
7. Respondent has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in AIR 1991 Delhi 25 and AIR 2005 Calcutta 281.
8. In a petition U/Sec. 22 of the DRC Act petitioner has to prove that petitioner is a Company or other Body Corporate or any Local Authority or any Public Institution and the premises are required for the use of employee of such landlord or in the case of Public Institution for the furtherance of its activities not withstanding anything contained U/Sec. 14 or any other Law.
9. In petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (i) of the DRC Act petitioner has to prove that petitioner is the landlord and respondent is the tenant and the premises were let to the tenant for use as residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord and that the tenant has ceased to be in the service or employment E no. 39A/2007 Page 6/12 M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
of the petitioner's Company.
10. Now it is known fact that none of the Company is being operated in Delhi after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore, petition on the ground U/Sec. 22 of the DRC Act has become infructuous.
11. So far as the first ingredient of ownership of petitioners Company is concerned, admittedly the respondent was tenant and being a tenant he was not entitled to challenge the title of the petitioner's Company and moreover no name of the person or the Company has been disclosed showing the owner of the suit property and witness PW-4 has proved on record that petitioner is duly incorporated Company under the Indian Companies Act by proving the Certificate of Incorporation as Ex. AW-4/3 and the take over of the original petitioner by M/s. Texmaco has already been proved on record as the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 03/01/1983 has been proved as Ex. AW-4/4 and the Scheme of the Arrangement as Ex. AW-4/5 and from the perusal of those documents it is clear that after 03/01/1983 the original petitioner M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. is now known as M/s. Texmaco Ltd. who carry on the work of said Company in the name of M/s. Birla Textiles and employees of the erstwhile Company became the employee of the M/s. Texmaco and thus, it is E no. 39A/2007 Page 7/12 M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
established on record that the petitioners are the owner qua the suit premises in respect of the respondent.
12. The next ground taken is that the present petition has not been filed by duly authorized person. Said controversy has already been put at rest by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16/10/2006 and after the said order Ld. ARCT remanded back the present case vide order dated 12/05/2007 to decide the case on merits except the issue of authorization and otherwise also witness AW-5 has proved on record Minutes Book of meeting of Board of Directors dated 10/07/1978, 12/04/2000 and 21/04/2000 and the Resolution dated 21/04/2000 has been exhibited as Ex. AW-5/1, Resolution dated 10/07/1978 as Ex. AW-5/2 and witness AW-6 has proved the photocopy of the Minutes of meeting of the petitioner's Company as Ex. AW-6/1 and thus, the authorization in favour of the Attorney Mr. P. C. Chhajjar has been proved on record and therefore, said contention raised appears to be misplaced.
13. Now the question remains to be decided as to whether the suit property was allotted/let out to the deceased respondent in lieu of his employment with the petitioner's Company or has been allotted/let out independently. Admitted case of the parties that the deceased respondent was the employee of the petitioner's Company and as per petitioners the suit property was allotted/let E no. 39A/2007 Page 8/12 M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
out to the deceased respondent in the year 1936. However, the stand taken by the deceased respondent that he was allotted the suit property in the year 1935 and neither the petitioner has produced any allotment letter of the year 1936 nor respondent has produced any allotment letter of the year 1935 and thus, evidence is oral on behalf of the parties and documents available on record i.e. Ex. PW-2/2 is a copy of the rent register and witness PW-2 Rama Shanker has deposed that said copy bears the signatures of Sh. Bedi Sharma and in his cross PW-2 has admitted that the said document Ex. PW-2/2 was not signed in his presence and document is of the year 1979 and witness PW-3 has proved Ex. PW-3/X-1 which is an undertaking given by the deceased respondent wherein it is clearly said that the suit property belongs to the petitioner's Company and in case his service is come to an end or has been terminated for any reason, he will vacate the suit premises and nor a single suggestion has been given in the cross examination that said document is forged and fabricated and does not bear the signatures of the deceased respondent and witness RW-1 in her Chief has deposed that no agreement was ever entered into between the respondent and petitioner to vacate the suit premises and in her cross examination she testified that she does not know if the deceased respondent occupied the premises in 1935 and has further admitted that rent was being deducted from the salary of the deceased respondent during continuance of the E no. 39A/2007 Page 9/12 M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
service and she has further admitted that the suit premises was given to deceased respondent by virtue of his employment with the Company and has further admitted that Company has repeatedly requested to deceased respondent to vacate the premises and that the quarters are allotted to the employees by the petitioner's Company and same is required to the petitioner's Company for allotment of other employees and thus, from the evidence available on record it has been established on preponderance of probability that suit property was allotted/let out to the deceased respondent by virtue of his employment and respondent has failed to substantiate the claim that the same was occupied by the deceased respondent even prior to his employment with the petitioner's Company and admittedly the respondent has already expired and has even retired from the services and thus, petitioner has been able to prove successfully that the suit property was allotted to the deceased respondent by virtue of his employment.
14. The next ground taken is that the suit property is situated in Slum Area and necessary permission has not been taken and therefore, present petition is not maintainable. However, witness PW-3 in his examination in chief has deposed that the suit property is not situated in Slum Area and witness has not been cross examined regarding his deposition on said aspect and thus, his deposition has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and on the E no. 39A/2007 Page 10/12 M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
other hand, nothing has been placed on record on behalf of respondent to show that the suit property is situated in Slum Area and thus, said ground appears to have been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
15. The next ground taken is that the Site Plan filed by petitioner is not correct but no counter Site Plan has been filed on behalf of respondent and it is settled law that in absence of any counter Site Plan, Site Plan filed on behalf of petitioner is deemed to be correct.
16. The next ground taken is that since, Director of the Company has not been impleaded as party therefore, petition is not maintainable and placed reliance upon the judgment reported in AIR 1991 Delhi 25. However it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence as it is settled law that the Company is a separate legal entity and can be sued in its own name and so far as competence of the authorized person to file the present petition is concerned, it is henceforth held that the said controversy has already been set at rest by the Hon'ble High Court and thus, said objection is misplaced.
17. Thus, petitioner has been able to prove all the ingredients of Sec. 14 (1) (i) of the DRC Act by proving the E no. 39A/2007 Page 11/12 M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
relationship of landlord and tenant by virtue of employment of the deceased respondent with petitioner's Company and the service of the deceased respondent has already been come to an end and further more he has now expired.
18. In the light of above discussion, this court is of the opinion that petitioner has proved the case U/s 14 (1)(i) of the D.R.C. Act and on the other hand, respondents have failed to prove their case.
19. In consequence thereof an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (i) of the D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one complete quarter bearing Pvt. no. 177, Line no. 14, in the residential colony commonly known as New Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 in the Municipal Ward no. 12 comprising of one room measuring 12'X10', one verandah measuring 12'X6' and one courtyard measuring 12'X10' as shown in the red colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on 31st May, 2011. Devendra Kr. Sharma A.R.C.(North)/Delhi.
(1+2 separate copies are attached).
E no. 39A/2007 Page 12/12M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
E NO. 39-A/2007 M/S TEXMACO LTD. & ANR. VS. SMT. PRABHAWATI & ORS.
31/05/2011 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the petitioner has proved its case U/s 14 (1) (i) of the D.R.C. Act and respondents have failed to prove their case and since none of the Company is being operated in Delhi, therefore, petition on the ground U/Sec. 22 of the DRC Act has become infructuous.
In consequence thereof an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (i) of the D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one complete quarter bearing Pvt. no. 177, Line no. 14, in the residential colony commonly known as New Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 in the Municipal Ward no. 12 comprising of one room measuring 12'X10', one verandah measuring 12'X6' and one courtyard measuring 12'X10' as shown in the red colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Devendra Kr. Sharma A.R.C.(North)/Delhi.
E no. 39A/2007 Page 13/12M/s. Texmaco Ltd. & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabhawati & Ors.
E no. 39A/2007 Page 14/12