TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the respondent. They occupied line rooms in the same building owned by the respondent. The respondent filed eviction petition to evict these revision petitioners. The common ground urged is one under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Other grounds were also urged. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application in all respects. The matter came in appeal. The Appellate Court held that the claim is maintainable under section 11(3) of the Act and dismissal of the case on that ground was not correct and the matter was remanded. Section 11(3) of the Act reads as follows : "(3) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er rent control petitions for the eviction of the other occupants are also being filed. The whole line building is bona fide needed by the petitioner to accommodate the office of the Chackolas Habitat of which petitioner is a director. The need of the company is that of the petitioner himself. Petitioner sent word through his Karyastha saying that the petitioner wants to get vacant possession of the building as he wants to make use of the petition schedule building for accommodating the office of Chackolas Habitat Private Ltd." [Emphasis supplied] 3. Therefore, the bona fide need urged by the respondent landlord is that he needed the above building for occupation of the company of which he is a director and shareholders of the company are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....got very much significance. The Supreme Court held in paragraph 8 (page 1030) as follows : "The first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 39 provides that at the request of the landlord such accommodation may be allotted to him if he needs it 'for his own occupation'. As section 39 deals with a residential as well as a non-residential accommodation, the expression 'his own occupation' in the first proviso should be amplified to read as 'his own occupation by way of residence or business'. Clauses (e) and (f) of section 12(1) are complementary to the first proviso to section 39(2). While the first proviso enables the landlord to obtain possession of a vacant accommodation for his own occupation by way of residence or business, section 12(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... directly and substantially for his occupation for the purpose of continuing or starting his business." 6. After holding so, the Supreme Court held that since the petitioner therein was a sleeping partner he cannot say that it is for his business. In paragraph 11 of the judgment it was held as follows (page 1031) : "If the deed of partnership has excluded him expressly or impliedly from the management of firm's business and has made him a sleeping partner, it cannot be held that the accommodation is needed directly and substantially for his occupation by way of business. Nor he has power to shift the business. To sum up, for the reasons already given, his suit should fail." 7. Here in this case the landlord is not requiring the building ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no parting of possession of the premises by the landlord and there is no subletting. The question to be considered is whether eviction is to be granted on the ground of subletting and whether there is transfer of exclusive possession, whereas under section 11(3) bona fide need for 'own' occupation has to be proved. Therefore, the above case is of no help to the petitioners while interpreting the provisions of section 11(3). (See also Janaki Devi v. Jain [1994] 5 SCC 337.) In Palakkad District Co-operative Bank v. Mohammed Kaleem [1996] 1 KLT 247 it was held that the words "his livelihood" mentioned under the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act can have reference only to a natural person and not to an inanimate lifeless legal entity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shareholder cannot bind another as there is no joint or several liability. A partnership has no legal existence apart from its members. Unlike partnership an incorporated company, is a separate entity distinct from the shareholders. A company is a legal person. This position is well-illustrated in Aron Saloman v. A. Saloman & Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22 HL. This principle laid down in the 18th century is still followed. Therefore, a company is entirely a different persona. By incorporation under the Companies Act, a company is vested with a corporate personality which is distinct from the members who compose it. In this connection we also refer to section 34(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. An incorporated company never dies. It is an entity with p....