Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar Bhambari vs Ram Nath Bajaj on 28 August, 1989
Equivalent citations: AIR1990P&H208, AIR 1990 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 208
ORDER
1. This is a Revision by the tenant from the judgment of the Rent Controller dated January 19, 1989 whereby in an action by the landlord claiming possession by ejectment, the tenant was ordered to be ejected.
2. The only question raised by the learned counsel for the tenant and which needs determination is whether a retired employee of a nationalised bank would be a specified landlord as defined by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985.
3. Briefly, the undisputed facts necessary to determine the question raised in the Revision Petition are that the landlord having retired with effect from October 31, 1988, from the service of the Punjab National Bank as Senior Manager claimed the possession of ihe demised premises for his own occupation being a specified landlord.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant urged that the landlord never held an appointment in public service under the Union of India or the State. He was not holding a post in connection with the affairs of the Union of India or the State. He was holding a post in a nationalised bank, viz., Punjab National Bank which is a statutory corporation under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. It was submitted that holding a post in a Corporation, though wholly owned by the State or the Union of India, would not amount to holding a post in connection with the affairs of the State. Neither would it amount to holding a post under the State. The landlord was not drawing any emoluments from the Union of India or the State. He was not under the disciplinary control of the Union of India or the State. There was no relationship of master and servant between the Union of India or the State and the landlord. Protection of provisions of the Constitution of India, like Article 311; would not be available to him either. His rights as an employee of the Corporation would flow from and under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 or the rules framed thereunder. The object of the amended provision of the Rent Act, it was urged was to provide shelter to the retiring Government Servants only.
5. In order to buttress his submission the learned counsel relied on Thote Bhaskara Rao v. The A. P. Public Service Commission, AIR 1988 SC 830, Ravindra Kumar Misra v. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. (1988) I Serv LR 526 : (AIR 1987 SC 2408), Smt. Suman Lata Aggarwal v. Union Bank of India, (1988) 93 Pun LR 503, S. Amarjit Singh v. Punjab National Bank (1986) 2 Serv LR 121 (Delhi), T. S. Varghese v. Reserve Bank of India (1980) 1 Serv LR 857 : (1980 Lab 1C 313) and Jagmohan Lal Bajpai v. State of M. P, (1977) 1 Serv LR 746 (Madh Pra).
6. The learned counsel for the landlord while opposing the claim of the tenant sanguinely urged, that the landlord was holding a post in connection with the affairs of the Union of India. The landlord was a specified landlord. In the alternative, it was urged that since the Bank is State as envisaged by Article 12 of the Constitution of India, consequently the landlord was holding a post under the State. The learned counsel relied on Surinder Singh Bangarv. Union of India(1989) 95 Pun LR 646, Dr. Dina Nath v. Smt. Santokh Kaur (1987)91 Pun LR 171 : (AIR 1987 Punj & Hry 243), Fateh Chand Verma v, Balbir Singh, (1987) 91 Pun LR 414; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 : Chini Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 Patna 273; and Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, AIR 1974 All 324. Reference to the object of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act of 1970 was also made.
7. The Rent Act is regulatory in its nature and was enacted to protect the exploitation of the tenants. The Legislature in its wisdom has kept the cherished desire of an Indian to live in his own house as intact by conferring a right on the landlord to claim the possession of the demised house for his own use and occupation. There is no gainsaying that the Rent Act is an encroachment on right of a p'erson to use his property according to his own free will.
8. It is well accepted principle in interpretation of statutes that the scope of the provision of an Act would firstly have to be determined per force of the language used or employed by the legislature in the Legislation. It would be immaterial what transpired before the enactment. The objects and reasons would be considered and would be relevant in interpreting a statute when the language of the Act or the specified provision is capable of two interpretations- Ordinarily the natural meanings of the words or the expressions have to be given unless the context in which the Act is woven provides an inference of different meanings. No attempt should be made to alter the material in which the Act is woven. Meaning has to be given in consonance with the section of the Act and attempt should be made to read the Act harmoniously. No attempt should be made to whittle down the mandate of the Legislation. Meaning or interpretation of a provision has to be meaningful and cannot be pushed to a point of defeating justice, which is an object of law for which constant endeavour should be to give each one his due.
9. There is another well accepted prin-ciple in the interpretation of statutes which has to be kept in view i.e. the doctrine of pith and substance. Object and policy can he and should be referred to for interpretation of a provision of an Act when a doubt arises or where the Court has to decide whether a liberal or narrow meaning should be given to a provision. No intentional Or unintentional attempt should be made to create an ambi-guity first by giving ingenious meaning to the plain words used by the Legislature and then give meaning to it according to one's notions about what law should be. Natural meaning of the language should be adhered to.
10. At this stage. I am constrained to observe that one of the instincts of an Ordinary prudent person in his old age or a retired man is to live in his own house particularly in the social concept of an Indian. 'Otherwise also, the provisions of the Rent Act are regulatory in nature and a restriction on the right to property. The rights flowing under a regulatory legislation cannot be taken to such - an end by interpreting the statute that these would produce draconian rule and un just results. The policy of not depriving a person of his right to live in a house of his own according to his choice not tainted with lack of bona fide as protected by the Rent Act should be given effect to. Right of the tenant to live in a tenanted premises and that of the landlord to live in his own house have to be balanced.
11. In order to determine the question raised, it would be expedient to refer to the provisions of the Act. Under section 2(hh) of the Act as amended by Punjab Act 2 of 1985, the definition of a specified landlord reads as under :
" 'specified landlord' means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union of a State."
12. Section 13-A reads as under :--
"Where a specified landlord at any time, within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement, of the E.ast Punjab. Urban Rent, Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to the Controller alongwith a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of his residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be, for his own occupation, there shall accrue on and from the date of such application to such . specified landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force on in any contract whether expressed or implied, custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately the possession of such residential building or scheduled building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts.
xxxxx X X X X
13. By amending the Act a right has been conferred on a specified landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant from residential or scheduled buitding and recover its immediate possession on his retirement. The Amended Act with effective implementation of the right conferred on the specified landlord, as its object provides speedy and efficacious remedy, only to enforce the said right of ejectment with a view to mitigate the hardship to the specified landlord which he is likely to suffer on his retirement. The object of conferring the right on a specified landlord to seek immediate ejectment of the tenant from a residential or scheduled building obviously was to mitigate the hard pressed need of a roof to a retiring person at a place of his choice, i.e. where he intends to settle particularly in view of the fact that a specified landlord generally has to vacate the premises provided by the employer. In view of the special procedure, the landlord is required to apply for the ejectment to the Rent Controller having jurisdiction with an affidavit with respect to his date of retirement and demised premises needed for his occupation as well as with respect to his bbna fides. The Rent Controller would then issue summons to the tenant in the specified form by registered cover as well as through Process-Server and further simultaneously order service by affixation. The Rent Controller being satisfied with respect to the due service would declare so.
14. The tenant after his due service of summons having been so declared has been given only a right viz. he can file an affidavit stating the grounds on which he proposes to Oppose the claim of the landlord and contest the application for ejectment, thus, seek leave to defend the ejectment, proceedings. The Rent Controller on his refusal to grant leave to defend or where it was not sought would deem the allegations made in the ejectment application as correct and consequently order the ejectment. No right of appeal has been given and only right of Revision has, been provided wherein the High Court would satisfy itself only with respect to the legality of the order of the Rent Controller.
15. By reading the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1985. the basic design behind the amendment revealed is to the effect that in order to satisfy the instinct of a retiring person to live in his own house and to mitigate his hardship on his retirement having served the Government the specified landlord i.e. the retiring Government employee, has been given a right to eject the tenant and take possession without undergoing the stringent longdrawn rigours of a trial under the Rent laws.
16. The provisions of the act succinctly point out that a person who held an appointment in a public service, or the one who held a post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State can seek ejectment of the tenant from his premises on his retirement. The rights of the landlord are not shackled by conventional procedure for ejectment from a dwelling house. The landlord is supposed to satisfy the authority i.e. the Rent Controller only to the effect that he is specified landlord he either held an appointment in a public service or held a post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State and is not in possession of any suitable accommodation in the locality and further that there is no lack of bona fides. On providing the conditions imposed, the landlord would be entitled to take the possession of the dwelling unit. As observed earlier, this has been provided in order to promote the welfare of a retiring employee by affording him an opportunity to have a roof over his head who had served the State during his career on account of the exigencies of his service, was sometimes provided with a shelter by his employer which he had to vacate op. his retirement. In the absence of this helping hand of law the specified landlord would be left high and dry without a roof at the fag and of his life when one is supposed to live in peace after giving best part of his life in the service of the Union of India or the State.
17. In Thote Bhaskara Rao's case (AIR 1988 SC 830) fsupra), it was held that there was a difference in the nature of service under the Government and that of a service like the one in the service of Hindustan Shipyard which is a Corporate body. It was observed that though corporation is a State for limited purposes still a person in the service of a corporation would not be held to be in Government Service. Similar is the view taken in Smt. Suman Lata Aggarwal's case (1988-93 Pun LR 503) (supra) wherein Bank employee of a Nationalised Bank viz. Union Pink of India was not considered as Government Servant.
18. In Sm Amarjit Singh's case (1986-2 Serv LR 121) (Delhi) (supra) while observing Punjab National Bank to be an instrumentality of the State as envisaged by Art. 12 of the Constitution of India, it was found that Art. 311 of the Constitution of India would not be applicable to its employees. Karnataka High Court while considering the case of an employee of Reserve Bank of India found that though the Reserve Bank of India is a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitu-tion of India yet this enlarged definition of State for the purpose of Art. 12 could not be made applicable to the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India so as to make it applicable to its employees nor its employees could be held to be holding civil posts. The resultant syndrome which emerged from the case law referred by the learned counsel is to the effect that the definition of State envisaged by Art. 12 of the Constitution of India cannot be read too liberally and cannot be interpreted in another statute to determine the meaning of the word 'State' in the context used in those statutes.
19. Similar were the observations made with respect to an employee of State Hand-loom Corporation Ltd. by their-Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in: Ravindra Kumar Misra's case (AIR 1987 SC 2408) (supra). I arn in full agreement with what has fallen from Thota Bhaskara Rao's case (AIR 1988 SC 830) (supra) to the effect that an employee of a statutory Corporation established by a State does not hold employment under the Union of India or the. State and there would be no applicability of Art. 311 of the Constitution in its terms to the service of an employee of a statutory Corporation. I cannot add anything gainfully to the dictum laid down by the authorities cited above.
20. The learned counsel for the tenant urged that the landlord was not holding a civil post. While contending so, he relied on Jag-mohan Lal Bajpai's case (1977-1 Serv LR 746) (Madh Pra) (supra), wherein it was observed that in Municipal service constituted by the State, an employee cannot be equated with the civil service of the State as envisaged by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord did not contend at the bar that the landlord was a civil servant. In my considered view-there is no dispute particularly in view of the law laid down by the authorities cited by the counsel for the tenant that the landlord was not holding any appointment under the Union of India or the State, there was no relationship of master and servant between the Union of India or the State and the landlord, he did not enjoy an umbrella of protection to his service provided by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The claim of the tenant cannot be refuted effectively by the landlord to the effect that the landlord was not holding an appointment under the Union of'India or the State. In my view, though the point raised has not been very seriously pressed but it is right to say a word about it at this stage.
21. With great respect to the Hon'ble Judge I find it difficult to agree with the observations "it is no doubt true that under Section 86 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act a State Municipal Service is required to be constituted by the State and that State has control over the employees in the service so constituted, but that service cannot be equated with a service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State as contemplated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It still remains a Municipal Service for staff-ing the Municipal Council," The reasons for differing are given in the later part of the judgment.
22. Now the only question which survives for determination is whether the landlord as an employee of a Nationalised Bank was holding a post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. In order to answer the question, one has to make a liberal approach while interpreting the provisions of the Rent Act, particularly when the rigours of regulating the rights of the landlord in freely dealing with the estate are under consideration.
23. It is not disputed, rather fairly conceded that the landlord was holding a post. Post as ordinarily understood is an office or a position in which one is employed or to which one is assigned or is in and on when one is discharging some duties in public interest. It is not concomitent of a post that a person holding a post must be belonging to a regular service or a member of a cadre or that one must be discharging the, duties of a post. It is an individual office in a service which is the connotation of the post as ordinarily understood by an ordinary prudent man who is to follow the law made by the State. It may be an employment but it is not essential that it should be a part of an employment. Employment or being in service is not the essential ingredient for holding a post, nor is the relationship of master and servant a part and parcel of consideration for holding a post. It may be that in peculiar facts and circumstances, a disciplinary and administrative control may vest in a person holding a post, he may be a master of himself. No water-tight definition of a post can be spelt out nor one, should make an attempt on it. In each and every case including setting in law or statutory provision where the word 'post' has been used have to be considered. No doctrinate approach can be made while determining whe-ther a person is holding a post or not. Essential facts and realities have to be kept in mind.
24. I am of the view that the State being a Welfare State; its activities are large and expanding in character, particularly in view of the scientific and modern developments taking place in the Society. The duties of the State, its functions and responsibilities are resulting in the expansion of the affairs of the State. The traditional concept of the affairs of the State and its sovereign functions are facing and it is embracing numerous activities which can fairly be called affairs of the State i.e. providing health service, transport, eco-
nomic activities Banking etc. Because of the increase in the multifarious welfare activities public interest in the welfare State and its administrative functions are also getting complex.
25. While considering what are the affairs of the State, one cannot have a doctrinate approach and lose sight of the developing administration science and consider only legal or sovereign functions of the State as the only affairs of the State. It would be too much to consider that legal and sovereign functions of the State are the only affairs of the State. While finding out the affairs of the State, one has to keep in view the nature of functions in which the Slate is concerned, and its effect on public interest. Affairs of the State would sweep all the affairs and activities in which State is indulging in public interest and are not ordinarily a trading business or dealing with the ordinary contracts and properties during the course of the discharge of the governmental functions. As ordinarily understood, the working of the State in commercial concerns are not State affairs. Where the State activity is by the use of public power, it is quite distinct from the one when it runs a service that an ordinary citizen could do. Where the governmental activity is by use of public power for public interest, for administrative convenience it may be through an instrumentality or agency of the State, it wouid be an affair of the State and a person engaged in the discharge of those functions would be acting in connection with the affairs of the State.
26. As observed earlier, the Governments having been called upon to take more active part in the economy of the Nation and to effectively administer with experts, knowledge the economic activity various Corporations were incorporated by the States. The Corporations established under the statutes are totally financed by the State, their administration is run by Government servants either directly or indirectly, the Legislative power is delegated to the Corporation with proper hedging and keeping the control of the State over it. Employees of the Corporation maintain a dual character, i.e. they discharge the duties as public servants and at the same time they may discharge the functions that a private citizen would do. Again, there cannot be any acid test to determine that a person is holding a post in connection with the affairs of the State. It is the nature of functions a person is performing which would be a criterion to Judge whether he is holding a post in connection with the affairs of the State. While determining this, one has to keep in view the organic structure of the corporation and (sic) the service provided operates to meet requirements of a citizen or the public at large, (sic) relating various judgments, their Lordships Supreme Court observed in Ramana Dayaram Shetty's (supra) (AIR 1979 SC 1628 at Pp. 1636-37) as under:
"Today the Government, in a welfare State is the regular and dispenser of special services and provide of a larger number of benefits, including jobs contracts, licences, quotas, mineral rights etc. The Government pours forth wealth, money, benefits, services, contracts, quotas and licences. The valuables dispensed by Government take many forms, but they all share one characteristic. They are steadily taking the place of traditional forms of wealth. These valuables which derive from relationships to Government are of many kinds. They compromise social security benefits, cash grants for political sufferers and the whole scheme of State and local welfare. Then again, thousands of people are employed in the State and the Central Government and local authorities. Licences are required before one can engage in many kinds of business or work. The power of giving licences means power to withhold them and this gives control to the Government or to the agents of Government on the lives of many people. Many individuals and many more businesses enjoy larges in the form of Government contracts. These contracts often resemble subsidies. It is virtually impossible to lose money on them and many enterprises are set up primarily to do business with Government. Government owns and controls hundreds of acres of public land valuable for mining and other purposes. These resources are available for utilisation by private Corporations and individuals by way of lease or licence. All these mean growth in the Government largess and with the increasing magnitude and range of governmental functions as we move closer to a welfare State, more and more of our wealth consists of these new forms. Some of these terms of wealth may be in the nature of legal rights but the large majority of them are in the nature of privileges. But on that account, can it be said that they do not enjoy any legal protection? Can they be regarded as gratuity furnished by the State so that the State may withhold, grant or revoke it at its pleasure? Is the position of the Government in this respect the same as that of a private giver. We do not think so. The law has not been slow to recognise the importance of this new kind of wealth and the need to protest individual interest in it and with that end in view, it has developed new forms of protection. Some interests in Government larges, formerly regarded as privileges, have been recognised as rights while others have been given legal protection not only by forging procedural safeguards but also by confining/structuring and checking Government discretion in the matter of grant of such largess..... The Government is still the Government when it acts in the matter of granting largess...."
27. It was further observed "the Government represents the executive authority of the State, may act through the instrumentality or agency of natural persons or it may employ the instrumentality or agency of juridical persons to carry out its functions. In the early days, when the Government had limited functions, it could operate effectively through natural persons constituting its civil service 'and they were found adequate to discharge governmental functions, which were of traditional vintage. But as the tasks of the Gov-ernment multiplied with the advent of the welfare State, it began to be increasingly felt that the framework of civil service was not sufficient to handle the new tasks which were often of specialised and highly technical character. The inadequacy of the civil service to deal with these new problems came to be realised and it became necessary to forge a new instrumentality or administrative device for handling these new problems. It was in these circumstances and with a view to sup-
plying this administrative need that the public corporation came into being as the third arm of the Government. As early as 1819 the Supreme Court of the United States in Mac Culloch v. Maryland, (1816-19)4 Wheat 316 held that the Congress has power to charter corporations as incidental to or in and of governmental functions and, as pointed out by Mathew, J. in Sukhdev v. Bhagat Ram, (1975) 3 SCR 619 : AIR 1975 SC 1331, such federal corporations would ex-hypo-thest be agencies of the Government."
28. "Ordinarily these functions could have been carried out by Government depart-mentally through its service personnel, but the instrumentality or agency of the corporations was resorted to in these cases having regard to the nature of the task to be performed. The corporations acting as instrumentality or agency of Government would obviously be subject to the same limitations in the field of constitutional and administrative law as the Government itself, though in the eye of the law, they would be distinct and independent equal entities."
29. It was further observed "If Government acting through its officers is subject to certain constitutional and public law limitations, it must follow a fortiori that Government acting through the instrumentality or agency of corporation should equally be subject to the same limitations.
30. Following the judgments of the, Supreme Court, while considering the test to determine whether an institution or a corporation is a State or it can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the State, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in 'Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487, laid down the following tests:
(1) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government."
(2) "Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character."
(3) "It may also be a relevant factor..... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected."
(4) "Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality."
(5) "If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government."
(6) "Specifically, if a department of Gov ernment is transferred to a corporation it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference of the corporation being an instru mentality or agency of Government." If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumenta lity or agency of Government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authority's case, be an 'authority' and, there fore, 'State' within the meaning of the expres sion in Article 12."
31. In Chini Mazdoor Sangh case (AIR 1971 Patna 273) (supra) where the Mill was solely owned by the Government, it was observed that 'in a welfare State activities of the State are numerous. The primary function of the State to govern is not the only function of the State in modern times. The conception of State and Government performing only the regal and sovereign functions gradually embraced the wider sphere of the activities of the State'. While agreeing with the observations of Punjab High Court with respect to what constitutes, the affairs of the State it was observed that legal and sovereign functions of the State should not be considered the only affairs of the State. It should be construed in a manner so as to take within its sweep all affairs and activities of the State in which it indulges in modern times.
32. While considering the case of an em-
ployee of the Municipal Committee, New Delhi, to be a specified landlord, it was observed in Shri Fateh Chand Verma's case (1987-91 Pun LR 414) (supra) as under:
"The main controversy between the parties in this petition is as to whether the landlord falls within the definition of specified landlord or not. The definition of specified landlord under Section 2(hh) of the Act is as under :--
"2(hh) "specified landlord" means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."
With this petition, a certificate annexure P-4 has been filed which has been issued by the Secretary New Delhi Municipal Committee dated 21-10-1980. It has been stated therein that Shri Fateh Chand Verma has retired from municipal service with effect from 31-10-1984 as Assistant Secretary (inquiry). His post is pensionable and he is getting the pension. The Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules and F.R. and S. R. Government of India are, adopted in this office as amended, from time to time. N.D.M.C. is being governed and controlled by Delhi Administration, Delhi, headed by Lt. Governor, Delhi. Thus, it could not be disputed that the petitioner had held a post being in the employment of N.D.M.C. With this background the relevant provision of the Act may now be noticed."
33. Similar was the view in Dr. Dina Nath's case (AIR 1987 Punj & Har 243) (supra), with respect to an employee of Central Soil Salinity Research Institute who was held to be a specified landlord. It was observed as follows :
".....Article 37 of the Constitution lays down that the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Part IV thereof are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws."
34. Further reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty's case (AIR 1979 SC 1628) (supra) referred to in the earlier pan of the judgment was made.
35. In case of an employee of Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the Supreme Court in P. K. Ramachandra Iver v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 541 observed that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research being an almost adjunct of the Government of India having an outward form of being a Society, it could be styled as a Society set up by the State and therefore, would be an instrumentality of the State. Hence the employee of a statutory Corporation being an instrumentality of the State was held to be holding an appointment in connection with the affairs of the State.
36. From a campodea of the law laid down by the judgments cited above, it would be reasonable to hold that in case of the employees of the statutory institutions which are, in fact, the instrumentalities or agencies of the State, the employees will be deemed to be holding an appointment in connection with he affairs of the State particularly when, in fact, the statutory Corporation is totally financed by the Government, in fact, owned by the Government and managed by the Government and its employees discharge the duties in public interest and which are in the realms of the duties the Government is bound to discharge in view of the Cosntitution. It would be reasonable to infer that the Corporation being an instrumentality or the Agent was functioning in connection with the affairs of the State. I see no reason not to hold that the employees of such a Corporation are holding an appointment in connection with the affairs of the State.
37. There is no gainsaying that in M. K. Aggarwal v. Gurgaon Gramin Bank, AIR 1988 SC 286 and in Smt. Suman Lata Aggar-wal's case (1988-93 Pun LR 503) (supra), it was observed that (i) an employee of a Nationalised Bank is not a Government Servant (ii) Regional Banks constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act are the instrumentality of the State being made of latter's own flesh and bones and is to be treated as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute with the principle of law laid down, but the principle of law laid down rather supports the view that an employee of an instrumentality of a State would be holding an appointment in connection with the affairs of the State. I do not find any reason to hold it otherwise, nor any such reason has been pointed out.
38. In the present case, admittedly the Punjab National Bank was nationalised and was taken over by the State under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act No. 5 of 1970. There is no dispute that the Act was enacted and Banks were nationalised in order to control the heights of the economy and to meet progres sively and serve better the needs of develop-
ment of the economy in conformity with the national policy and objectives and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
That is the object given to the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act No. 5 of 1970 for its enact ments. Under the scheme of the Act, the Bank became a Corporation created by a statute and it stood completely vested in the Central Government. It would act as an agent of the Reserve Bank of India. The complete title, interest, possession power and control vested in the Central Government who would administer it through the Board of Directors constituted by the Government. Profits of the Bank vested in the Central Government. Government even delegated its legislative
functions with respect to the terms and condi- tions of service of the employees and some other matters to the Management of the Bank and authorised them to make rules and run day-to-day working. The regulations are re-
quired to be put up before each House of the Parliament.
39. From a bare reading of the, Act and its scheme, it is apparent that though the Bank is a corporate body created by a statute but, in fact, it is the governmental functions which are being performed by it. Provisions have been designed to discharge the sovereign and legal functions of a State through the instru-mentality or agency of the statutory corporate body, i.e. Banks. It would be delusional to hold the Bank is not discharging the functions connected with the affairs of the State, the basic design of the Act being to administer for administrative reasons the governmental affairs through the corporate body created by the statute.
40. For the reasons recorded above, I find no rewason to hold that being an employee of the Nationalised Bank of which all rights and title vested in the Central Government does not amount to holding a post in connection with the affairs of the State. Thus, I find no force in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not a specified landlord. The respondent is squarely covered by the definition of a specified landlord.
41. Resultantly, the Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
42. The tenant is, however, given three months time to vacate the premises and to hand over the possession to the landlord-respondent provided he says the arrears of rent, if any, as well as future rent of three months and provided he files an undertaking for handing over the vacant possession of the demised premises on expiry of three months. In the eventuality of the tenant failing to comply with the above terms, the landlord would be entitled to recover the possession by taking out the execution in accordance with law.
43. Revision dismissed.