TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ikumar Jagad and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 695. At the same time, the Appellant National Textile Corporation Ltd. (for short "NTC") has filed an application for directions including for extension of time. Whereas, Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the review petition (for short "Respondents") who were Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the aforementioned civil appeal, have filed contempt petition for initiating appropriate action against the Appellant NTC. During the pendency of the review petition, an Ordinance was promulgated titled as the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 2014 which later on became The Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014 (for short "Validation Act 2014"), as a result of which the Union of India has filed an application for urging additional grounds in the Review Petition. As the issues to be decided in these proceedings are overlapping, we propose to deal with the same by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the property in question admeasuring 12118 square yards of land, bearing Plot No. 9 in Survey No. 73 of Lower Parel Division, N.M. Joshi Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai, originally belonged to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and peaceful possession of the suit Plot No. 9, Cadastral Survey No. 73 of Lower Parel Division situated at Delisle Road, (Now known as N.M. Joshi Marg), Bombay-400011 to the Plaintiffs; (b) that the Defendants No. 2 be ordered and decreed to pay the mesne profit to the Plaintiffs from the date of the suit till the Decree at the rate of Rs. 128.75 per month, and after passing of the Decree a direction be given to make inquiry in the matter and such other rate 170, at the rate prevailing in the market be fixed as the mesne profit payable till possession is handed over to the Plaintiffs; (c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the Defendants No. 2 their servants, agents and representatives be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from carrying out any further work of additions, alterations and/or erections of a permanent nature or committing acts of waste into or upon the suit lands viz., Plot No. 9, Cadastral Survey No. 73 of Lower Parel Division situated at Delisle Road, (Now known as N.M. Joshi Marg), Bombay-400011; (d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit that the Defendants No. 2 their servants, agents and r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. C. that it be also declared that Defendants No. 3, as the statutory tenants of the Plaintiffs in respect of suit premises being Plot No. 9, Cadastral Survey No. 73, land admeasuring about 12,118 Sq. yards with all buildings standing thereon, situated at Delisle Road, now known as N.M. Joshi Marg, Bombay-400011, had no right to claim and/or receive any compensation from the Defendants No. 1 and/or Defendant No. 2, for the acquirement and/or vesting of their statutory tenancy right, in the Defendants No. 1. D. that the Defendants No. 1 and 2 be directed to furnish the detail bifurcation of the payment mentioned in Schedule I item No. 4 of the said Ordinance 6 of 1995. E. that the Defendants No. 1 be also restrained from making any payment to the extent of Defendants No. 3, allege lease right, title, and interest in the suit property being Plot No. 9, Cadastral Survey No. 73, land admeasuring about 12,118 sq. yards with all buildings standing thereon, situated at Delisle Road, now known as N.M. Joshi Marg, Bombay-400011, fixed by the Defendants No. 1, and/or No. 2, as the Defendants No. 1 had only acquired statutory tenancy rights thereon. F. that it be declared that the De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of this Hon'ble Court from parting with possession or occupation of the suit premises under any assignment or part in whatsoever manner of induct any third party therein; (d) pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit some fit and proper person be appointed Receiver with all power Under Order 40 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to take charge of the suit premises; (e) pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit Defendants be ordered to pay to the Plaintiffs damages/equally profit at Rs. 7 lacs per month subject to adjustment of said amount when damages/mesne profit is finally determined by the Hon'ble Court; (f) interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (c), (d) and (e) above; (g) cost of this suit be provided for; and (h) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may required be granted. 7. The Appellant NTC filed its written statement denying the pleas taken by the Plaintiffs. The suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs (Trust) vide judgment and decree dated 5th August, 2006 by virtue of which the NTC was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application. This Court acceded to that request vide order dated 31st January, 2014 and extended the time to vacate until 30th June, 2014. NTC filed a fresh undertaking on 24th March, 2014, with the approval of the Union of India, in compliance of the order dated 31st January, 2014. 13. NTC has filed a fresh application on 27th June, 2014 before the expiry of the time to vacate, being I.A. No. 6 of 2014 for directions and praying for the following reliefs: PRAYERS: (a) To grant time to the Applicants herein to comply with all the laws, rules, Regulations as required for sub-division of the said land so that the land of the Respondent as well as Applicant could be demarcated and sub-divided; (b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the Order dated 5.8.2006 of the Hon'ble Small Causes Court as regards the handling over of the building structure standing on the said suit land does not imply that the buildings are to be handed over free of cost or that the Respondent Trust is the owner therein; (c) That in any event this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to vary the said order of the Small Cases Court dated 05.8.2006 in-as-much-as it directs handing over of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement. The plea taken by NTC in the written statement has been duly considered right up to this Court, which culminated into the decision of this Court. In fact, the review petition by Union of India is a subterfuge so as to circumvent the decree of possession passed against NTC in respect of the suit premises, and moreso, in defiance of the undertaking already given to this Court, with the approval of the Union of India, to hand over peaceful and vacant possession. According to the Respondents, the review petition by Union of India as well as the application for extension of time by NTC are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and must be dismissed. The Respondents have also invited our attention to the interim orders passed by this Court in the present proceedings and would contend that the Commission's Report exposes the stand taken by NTC that the suit premises are still being used for its activities. 16. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the review Petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Naphade & Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior Counsel appearing for NTC and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Ranjit Kumar & Mr. Shyam Divan, learned seni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld it be treated as an "Agent" of the Central Government. Whereas, NTC was controlled by the provisions of the 1995 Act and not by the Central Government. The Court also considered the purport of the expression "vesting" and noted that the Trust had rented out the suit premises to Podar Mills and what had vested was that right, title and interest of the Podar Mills and nothing else. It will be apposite to reproduce paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment under review, which rejects the claim of NTC in the following words: 42. It is not permissible for the Appellant to canvass that the Central Government has any concern so far as the tenancy rights are concerned. Right vested in the Central Government stood transferred and vested in the Appellant. Both are separate legal entities and are not synonymous. The Appellant being neither the Government nor the government department cannot agitate that as it has been substituted in place of the Central Government, and acts merely as an agent of the Central Government, thus protection of the 1999 Act is available to it. The Appellant cannot be permitted to say that though all the rights vested in it but it merely remained the agent of the Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rieved person so as to pursue the remedy of review petition. It is indisputable that the management of Podar Mills-Textile Undertaking was taken over by the Central Government after the commencement of the 1983 Act. The scope of management would obviously include possession and permissible use of the suit property of the Textile Undertaking so taken over. In due course, the 1995 Act came into force. As a consequence of Section 3 of this Act, the right, title and interest of the owners of the subject Textile Undertaking (Podar Mills Ltd.) including the statutory tenancy rights in relation to the suit property stood transferred to and vested absolutely in the Central Government. By the same provision, vide Sub-section (2) thereof, the Textile Undertaking which stood vested in the Central Government immediately thereafter stood transferred to and vested in the National Textile Corporation. That included subsisting statutory tenancy rights in respect of the suit property enjoyed by the concerned Textile Undertaking. However, Section 3 stands amended by virtue of the 2014 Act. That amendment by a legal fiction is deemed to have been inserted into the 1995 Act w.e.f. 1st January, 1994. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the Appellant, or when, being Respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. 24. The grounds for review are specified in Clause (1) noted above. The factual scenario in the present case is certainly not ascribable to discovery of new or important matters or evidence which was "available or existing" at the time of the decree but could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence. In the present case, the asseveration of the review Petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll effect to Section 4 of the 1952 Act by conferring on the debtors and creditors the right to apply to the court for calculation and reduction of debt. It was realised that courts always passed simple decrees. It was noticed that mortgaged property was not and could not be charged under the decree. It was therefore appreciated that unless the words "charged under the decree" were deleted the Section could never give any relief to any landlord whose estate had been acquired. 12. This Court in the Bombay case referred to the observations of Lord Asquith in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, 1952 AC 109 that "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it.... The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs". These observations indicate that the words "charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the 1952 Act confers power on the court to apply the law notwithstanding any provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore the application through intituled an application for review was not so. The substance and not the form of the application will be decisive. 27. Applying the underlying principle and as jurisdictional issues have been raised which are essentially founded on the law enacted by the Parliament with retrospective effect containing a legal fiction and for doing complete justice to the parties, besides the power of review Under Article 137 of the Constitution, it is open to this Court to exercise its plenary power Under Article 142 of the Constitution. 28. Reverting to the judgment under review, it is noticed that the provisions of the 1983 Act and 1995 Act have been generally adverted to while dealing with the plea taken by the Appellant NTC that it was in possession of the suit property merely as an agent of the Central Government. However, the Court declined to entertain that plea of NTC as it was not so specifically pleaded in the written statement. The Court then concluded that the Appellant NTC was neither the "Government" nor "Government Depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant chapter applicable to the case on hand, being Chapter III of that Act, read thus: THE TEXTILE UNDERTAKINGS (NATIONALISATION) LAWS (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) ACT, 2014 NO. 36 OF 2014 [17th December, 2014.] An Act further to amend the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 and the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995, in order to continue with the lease-hold rights vested in the National Textile Corporation on completion of the lease-hold tenure. WHEREAS the National Textile Corporation subserves the interests of the general public and the land continue to be in possession of the said Corporation; AND WHEREAS various other textile undertakings have been nationalised from time to time and their assets vested absolutely in the Central Government and thereafter transferred to the National Textile Corporation Limited by the Central Government free from all encumbrances; AND WHEREAS after the nationalisation of the textile undertakings, a large sum of money have been invested with a view to making the said textile undertakings viable; AND WHEREAS the Central Government has taken initiative to revive certain sick undertakings including the N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....instituted be maintainable against the National Textile Corporation on the ground that it has discontinued such activity in the textile undertaking. (9) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the continued deemed vesting of the lease-hold land in the Central Government shall not affect, impair or in any manner prejudice the rights of the National Textile Corporation to prosecute or defend any proceedings as a subsequent vestee in respect of any such lease-hold rights and no such proceedings shall fail only on account of the non-impleadment of that Government. 7. After Section 38 of the principal Act, the following Section shall be inserted, namely: 39. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority,- (a) the provisions of this Act, as amended by the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014, shall have and shall be deemed always to have effect for all purposes as if the provisions of this Act, as amended by the said Act, had been in force at all material times; (b) any lease-hold property divested from the National Textile Corporation to any person under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31. We may hasten to add that the validity of the provisions of Validation Act 2014 is not put in issue in these proceedings. As is noticed, the effect of the Validation Act 2014 is to incorporate Sub-sections (3) & (4) in Section 3 and subsections (8) & (9) in Section 4 of the Principal Act i.e. 1995 Act, with retrospective effect for all purposes, by a deeming provision, as if it had always been in force at all material times w.e.f. 1st April, 1994. In addition, Section 39 has been inserted in the Principal Act. 32. The effect of insertion of Sub-sections (3) & (4) in Section 3 of the Principal Act is that Section 3, as on 1st April, 1994, would read as follows: 3. (1) On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to every textile undertaking shall stand transferred to and shall and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government. (2) Every textile undertaking which stands vested in the Central Government by virtue of Sub-section (1) shall immediately after it has so vested, stand transferred to, and vested in, the National Textile Corporation. (3) Notwithstanding the transfer and vesting of any textile undertaking to the National Textile ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hold such licence or the textile undertaking specified in such other instrument for the remainder of the period for which the owner would have held such licence or the textile undertaking under such other instrument. (4) Every mortgagee of any property which has vested under this act in the Central Government and every person holding any charge, lien or other interest in, or in relation to, any such property shall give, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, an intimation to the Commissioner of such mortgage, charge, lien or other interest. (5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the mortgagee of any property referred to in Sub-section (2) or any other person holding any charge, lien or other interest in, or in-relation to, any such property' shall be entitled" to claim, in accordance with his-rights and interests, payment of the mortgage maps or other-dues, in whole or in part, out of the amounts specified in relation to such property in the First Schedule, but no such mortgage, charge, lien or other interest shall be enforceable against any property which has vested in the Central Government. (6) If, on the appointed day, any suit, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction (2), all such right, title and interest of Podar Mills as vested in the Central Government Under Sub-section (1), immediately stood transferred to and vested in the Appellant NTC "except the leasehold rights in the suit property" which continued to remain vested in the Central Government. For, the amended Section 3(3) explicitly postulates that the leasehold rights of the Textile Undertaking (Podar Mills) in respect of the suit property as on 1st April, 1994, continued to remain vested in the Central Government. That right was never transferred to NTC by operation of law. It pre-supposes that "only the other rights" of the Textile Undertaking as vested in the Central Government in terms of Sub-section (1), stood transferred to and vested in the NTC Under Sub-section (2). 34. In the present case, the management of Podar Mills was taken over by the Central Government in exercise of powers under 1983 Act whereafter the lease in respect of the suit property expired on 21st October, 1990. On expiry of the lease term, indisputably, Podar Mills became the protected tenant or statutory tenant within the purview of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,- (a) such person,- (i) who is a tenant, or (ii) who is a deemed tenant, or (iii) who is a sub-tenant as permitted under a contract or by the permission or consent of the landlord, or (iv) who has derived title under a tenant, or (v) to whom interest in premises has been assigned or transferred as permitted, by virtue of, or under the provisions of, any of the repealed Acts; (b) a person who is deemed to be a tenant Under Section 25; (c) a person to whom interest in premises has been assigned or transferred as permitted Under Section 26; (d) in relation to any premises, when the tenant dies, whether the death occurred before or after the commencement of this Act, any member of the tenant's family, who,- (i) where they are let for residence, is residing, or (ii) where they are let for education, business, trade or storage, is using the premises for any such purpose, with the tenant at the time of his death, or, in the absence of such member, any heir of the deceased tenant, as may be decided in the absence of agreement, by the court. Explanation.- The provisions of this Clause for transmission of tenancy shall not be restricted to the death of the orig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that - (a) this Act shall not apply to any of the areas specified in Schedule I or Schedule II or that it shall not apply to any one or all purposes specified in Sub-section (1); (b) this Act shall apply to any premises let for any or all purposes specified in Sub-section (1) in the areas other than those specified in Schedule 1 and Schedule II. 3. Exemption. (1) This Act shall not apply - (a) to any premises belonging to the Government or a local authority or apply as against the Government to any tenancy, licence or other like relationship created by a grant from or a licence given by the Government in respect of premises requisitioned or taken on lease or on licence by the Government, including any premises taken on behalf of the Government on the basis of tenancy or of licence or other like relationship by, or in the name of any officer subordinate to the Government authorised in this behalf, but it shall apply in respect of premises let, or given on licence, to the Government or a local authority or taken on behalf of the Government on such basis by, or in the name of, such officer; (b) to any premises let or su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereof. The latter part of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the 1999 Act makes it amply clear that the Act shall apply in respect of the premises let or given on licence to Government or a local authority or taken on behalf of the Government on such basis by, or in the name of, such officer. 36. As aforementioned, since the Central Government continued to remain as the protected or statutory tenant in respect of the suit property w.e.f. 1st April, 1994, the fact that the Appellant NTC was carrying on its activities therein would not extricate the landlord (Trust) from initiating eviction proceedings against the real tenant, namely, the Central Government or Union of India; and such eviction proceedings could be maintained only before the jurisdictional Rent Court having exclusive jurisdiction to decide any dispute between the landlord and tenant. The present suit, however, came to be filed only against the Appellant NTC and that too before the jurisdictional civil court under the Transfer of Property Act. It is obvious that the Trust acted on the legal advice and instituted the present suit, despite having filed two suits (namely, TER Suit 680/1568 of 1995 and RAD ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant NTC came to be justly filed before the civil court under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 39. This argument, in our opinion, is an attempt to oversimplify the purport of Section 3(3), if not indulging in hairsplitting of the contextual meaning of the expression "leasehold rights" therein and in Section 4(1) or elsewhere in the 1995 Act. Section 3(1) refers to right, title and interest of the owner of the Textile Undertaking generally. That encompasses all the rights as are spelt out in Section 4(1) of the Act. One such right can be leasehold rights. Concededly, the expression "leasehold rights" mentioned in the 1995 Act must be construed as referring to the rights under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as well as under the applicable Rent Act recognizing "tenancy rights" without exception. The expression "leasehold rights" has not been defined in the 1983 Act or in the 1995 Act or for that matter, in the concerned Rent Act. That expression can be discerned from the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The expression "lease" is defined in Section 105 thereof which reads thus: 105. Lease defined.- A lease of immoveable property is a transfer of a right t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he right to use and occupy the property in exchange for consideration, usu.rent. - The lease can be for a fixed period, or for a period terminable at will. [Cases: Landlord and Tenant-20.] 2- Such a conveyance plus all covenants attached to it. 3- The written instrument memorializing such a conveyance and its covenants. - all termed lease agreement; lease contract. 4- The price of real property so conveyed. 5- A contact by which the rightful possessor of personal property conveys the right to use that property in exchange for consideration. [Cases: Bailment-1.] Leasehold, n. (18c) A tenant's possessory estate in land or premises, the four types being the tenancy for years, the periodic tenancy, the tenancy at will, and the tenancy at sufferance. * Although a leasehold has some of the characteristics of real property, it has historically been classified as a chattel real. - Also termed leasehold estate; leasehold interest. See TENANCY. Cf. FREEHOLD. [Cases: Landlord and Tenant-70, 113, 117.] Leasehold interest. (18c) 1- LEASEHOLD; esp. for purposes of eminent domain, the lessee's interest in the lease itself, measured by difference between the total remaining rent and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the applicable Rent Act, then it is possible to say that the expression "leasehold rights" would be limited to a subsisting lease. However, in the present case, we are required to reckon the status of the Union of India and NTC qua the suit property in the context of the rights accrued in terms of the provision of the Rent Act of 1947 and 1999, respectively. The expression "leasehold rights" in 1995 Act, obviously, must receive wider meaning so as to encompass "tenancy rights" flowing from the applicable Rent Act. For, the expression "tenancy rights" accruing under the Rent Act is analogous to and interchangeable with the expression "leasehold rights". There is no reason to exclude the expression "statutory right" so enjoyed by the owners of the Textile Undertaking from the expression "leasehold rights" referred to in Sub-section (3), so long as it has not been so expressly excluded. 42. Considering the legislative intent for enacting the 1995 Act and the Validation Act 2014 also, it is not possible to give a restricted meaning to the expression "leasehold rights" occurring in Sub-section (3) of Section 3, as amended, or elsewhere in the said enactment. Thus, the expression lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt at sufferance, will be inapplicable as the rights of a protected or statutory tenant under the 1947 Act would be governed by that Act and such a tenant could be evicted only on the grounds postulated under the Rent Act upon an order passed by the jurisdictional Rent Court in that regard. 45. In the present case, admittedly, the Trust proceeded on a clear understanding that the rights enjoyed by Podar Mills Ltd. after determination of lease period was that of a protected or statutory tenant within the meaning of the rent legislation (1947 Act). That right had been transferred to and vested in the Central Government by virtue of Section 3(1) of the 1995 Act and continues to so vest in it in terms of Section 3(3) which had come into force w.e.f. 1st April, 1994 and deemed always to have effect for all purposes as if it had been in force at all material times. 46. Relying on the dictum in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, it was contended that Podar Mills having continued in occupation of the suit property only by virtue of the protection of the then applicable Rent Act, namely, the 1947 Act, even af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to sublet whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein. This prohibition is, however, subject to a contract to the contrary. A tenant who sublets or assigns or transfers the premises in contravention of this prohibition loses the protection of law and can be evicted by the landlord Under Section 21(1)(f). In the case of a statutory tenant, the relationship is not governed by contract. The prohibition against assignment and transfer is, therefore, absolute and the interest of a statutory tenant can neither be assigned nor transferred. This means that the interest of the statutory tenant in the premises in his occupation, as governed by the Karnataka Rent Control Act is a limited interest which enables the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or father or mother of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the premises as a member of the tenant's family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, to inherit the interest of the tenant on his death. The said interest of the tenant is, however, not assignable or transferabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iance was then placed on the exposition in paragraph Nos. 14 to 18 in Bhoolchand and Anr. v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Anr. (1991) 1 SCC 343. The Court noted the factual position of that case and the submissions of the counsel in paragraphs 14 to 16; and then proceeded to consider the same in paragraphs 17 and 18, which read as follow: 17. The decision in Damadilal case and Ors. in the same line related primarily to the question of heritable interest in the premises of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant who was in occupation as statutory tenant. Pointing out that the concept of statutory tenancy under the English Rent Acts and under Indian statutes like the one with which we are concerned rests on different foundations, it was held that the statutory tenant had a heritable interest in the premises which was not merely a personal interest but an interest in the estate like that of a contractual tenant. On this conclusion, the right of legal representatives of the statutory tenant to protect the possession and prosecute the appeal against eviction order was upheld. The main question for decision in Damadilal case was the heritable nature of the statutory tenancy and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in May as claimed by the landlord. The crux of the question for decision therein was stated thus: (SCC p. 269, para 24) The crux of the question, therefore, is whether the sub-letting by the tenant with the written consent of landlord during the currency of the tenancy becomes unlawful and illegal on the determination of the tenancy and furnishes a ground for eviction within the meaning of Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. On the finding that the sub-tenant had been inducted during the period of contractual tenancy on the basis of the written consent for sub-letting given by the landlord, the sub-letting did not become unlawful merely because the contractual tenancy of the tenant came to an end and the protection against eviction to the tenant as a statutory tenant also enured to the benefit of the lawful sub-tenant recognised by the statute. It was held as under: (SCC p. 271, paras 26 & 27) Sub-letting lawfully done with the written consent of the landlord does not become unlawful merely on the ground that the contractual tenancy has come to an end. Subletting to constitute a valid ground for eviction must be without the consent in writing of the landlord at the time when the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... misplaced and a futile exercise. In our opinion this was not so and the correct premise is that landlord's written consent for sub-letting during the period of contractual tenancy cannot be construed as his consent subsisting after expiry of the contractual tenancy. The submission of learned Counsel for the Appellants runs counter to the clear decision in Mahabir Prasad case which, in our opinion, is in no way contrary to the decisions starting with Damadilal case, the observations wherein are in the context of heritability of the statutory tenancy. In fact, it is rightly not even contended by Dr Chitale that the decision in Mahabir Prasad case runs counter to Damadilal case and other decisions following them. This is sufficient to indicate that the Appellants' contention is untenable. We fail to understand as to how the principle expounded in the reported decision will be of any avail to the Respondents (Trust). As already noted, it is not a case of subletting by the statutory tenant (Podar Mills Ltd.) but instead a case of involuntary transfer and vesting of rights and interest of the statutory or protected tenant in respect of the suit property in the Central Governmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any decree or order or direction notwithstanding any undertaking filed by the NTC in any court. Having observed that Section 3 has been amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1994 and upon giving full effect to the amendment, it must necessarily follow that the Central Government had acquired the status of protected or statutory tenant qua the suit property from that date and continue to remain so, and could be evicted only in the manner prescribed by the concerned rent legislation. The decree passed against NTC is on the assumption that the 1999 Act had no application to the suit property as the right had vested in NTC - which did not enjoy the protection of the 1999 Act. Resultantly, it must follow that the subject suit and the proceedings arising from or in relation thereto cannot proceed in law and moreso because NTC is not the real tenant. Further, as the tenancy rights in relation to the suit property continue to vest in the Central Government by operation of law, the provisions of the 1999 Act will be attracted, warranting suit for eviction to be filed against the Union of India before the jurisdictional Rent Court having exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the landlord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rights of the protected or statutory tenant stood transferred to and vested in w.e.f. 1st April, 1994. The Trust may have to take recourse to appropriate remedy under the provisions of the applicable rent legislation to evict the real tenant, the Central Government. Those proceedings will have to be decided on their own merits in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in the proceedings which have culminated in the judgment under review. 52. Considering the above, we are not inclined to continue with the contempt proceeding or for that matter application for extension of time filed by NTC. As a result, the dictum of this Court in T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 516, (Paragraph Nos. 9 to 22.), Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram and Ors. (1989) Supp. (2) SCC 418 (Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6) and Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 259 (Paragraph 11), will be of no avail. 53. The Respondents are seriously opposed to showing any indulgence to NTC in the garb of Review Petition by the Union of India. For, the review petition is hopelessly time barred as there is delay of 837 days coupled with conduct....