Vesting under acquisition law requires clear title; possession and eviction claims fail without proof that the bungalow formed part of the undertaking.

The vesting scheme under the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 extended only to the textile undertakings and property appurtenant to them; Bungalow No. 2 of Swadeshi House was not shown to form part of that vested property. Earlier litigation had not established title in the appellant's favour, and the prior decision in Doypack did not decide the status of this bungalow. On that basis, the appellant could not sustain possession or eviction proceedings under the Swadeshi Act or the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act without first proving vesting or title.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Bungalow No. 2 of the Swadeshi House vested in the appellant under the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986. (ii) Whether the appellant could sustain proceedings for possession and eviction in the absence of a clear determination of title in its favour.

Issue (i): Whether Bungalow No. 2 of the Swadeshi House vested in the appellant under the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986.

Analysis: The statutory scheme transferred and vested only the textile undertakings and the property appurtenant to such undertakings. The earlier decision in Doypack dealt with the vesting of shares, Bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block, but did not decide the status of Bungalow No. 2. The record showed that the claim to Bungalow No. 2 had repeatedly failed before different forums, and no adjudication had been obtained establishing its vesting in the appellant.

Conclusion: Bungalow No. 2 was not held to have vested in the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could sustain proceedings for possession and eviction in the absence of a clear determination of title in its favour.

Analysis: The proceedings under the Swadeshi Act and the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act depended on the appellant establishing that the property formed part of the vested undertaking. In the absence of a declaration of title and in light of the earlier dismissals and directions to approach the appropriate civil forum, the courts below were right in rejecting the complaint and the eviction claim.

Conclusion: The appellant could not maintain the proceedings without establishing title or vesting in its favour.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed because the disputed bungalow was never conclusively shown to be part of the vested property, and the concurrent findings rejecting the possession and eviction claims called for no interference.

---