Assam Brookes Ltd. v. Lal Bahadur — 1999 DIGILAW 77 (GAU)

This is an appeal by the plaintiff which arises on the following circumstances. The appellant as plaintiff instituted a suit against the sole respondent as defendant for eviction of the defendant from the suit land. 2. The plaintiff inter alia pleaded that the defendant was his employee in one of the tea estates and was dismissed from service on 29.11.76. Plaintiff also pleaded that taking advantage of his employment, defendant trespassed into the suit land illegally, hence the suit for eviction. 3. The defendant contested the suit, filed its written statement pleading inter alia that he had been in continuous possession over the suit land since 1962 as an occupancy tenant of the plaintiff, therefore he is not liable to be evicted as sought for protection granted by the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act. 1971. The learned trial Court framed the following issues : “(1) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit and whether any cause of action arose on 8.4.76 and thereafter ? . (2) Whether the suit has been properly valued and proper Court fee has been filed? (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of valid notice as required under law ? . (4) Whether the plaint has been signed and verified in proper way by properly authorised person ? (5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? (6) Whether defendant having acquired the occupancy right is not liable to be evicted under law and is protected by Assam Tenancy Laws ? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for ? (8) What other relief or relief's the parties are entitled to?” 4. After conclusion of the trial? the learned trial Court decided the issue Nos. 2,3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff and issue Nos 1,4,6,7 and 8 in favour of the defendant and accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned appellate Court decided the issue Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff and went against the plaintiff in issue Nos 4,6 and 7 and dismissed the appeal. 5. In the second appeal this Court formulated one substantial question of law namely as to whether the learned Court below fell into error in deciding the suit holding that the defendant as a protected tenant under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971. 5. In the second appeal this Court formulated one substantial question of law namely as to whether the learned Court below fell into error in deciding the suit holding that the defendant as a protected tenant under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971. In addition a substantial question of law arises c in this appeal as to whether the Court below fell into error in deciding the issue No. 4 against the appellant in dismissing the suit on erroneous interpretation of Order 29 Rule 1 read with Order 6 Rule 14 of the CPC. 6. Mr. SN Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 is not applicable to the land comprised in the estates settled for special cultivation when, and only so long as, such lands are used for the purpose of special cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel pointed out that both the Courts below accepted that the land in question was the land settled for special cultivation. The learned appellate Court dealt with the issue and while dealing with the matter has pointed out that the land belongs to New Lease Grant. Based on that Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel submitted that since the land was settled for special cultivation the application of the Act is barred in view of the exception made in section 2 (b) of the Act. The learned Court below failed to take into consideration that aspect of the matter and dismissed the suit illegally. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel also submitted that the learned Courts below took a too technical view in dismissing the suit on the alleged irregularities in signing and verifying the plaint. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel also submitted that at no stage licence was any doubt about the genuineness of the suit presented by the authority the learned Court below ought not to have rejected the plaint on the purported ground of procedural formalities. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar & others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 660 . 7. Mr. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar & others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 660 . 7. Mr. GP Bhowmik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand firstly submitted that this second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of facts and therefore the question of interference under section 100 CPC does not arise. Mr. Bhowmik, the learned counsel pointed out that the Courts below on assessing the evidences on record came to a positive findings that the defendant respondent acquired the occupancy right over the land and therefore the Courts below rightly protected the defendant from eviction. 8. In the instant case the learned trial Court while deciding the issue No. 4 observed that the suit was instituted and verified by the General Manager of the company as Constituted Attorney. Since the defendant in paragraphs 3 and 6 disputed about the proper filing and verification, the learned trial Court decided the issue No. 4 against the plaintiff. The appellate Court accepted the above finding of learned trial Court. Order 6 Rule 14 of the CPC lays down that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any) provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. In suits by or against a Corporation, as to by whom the pleadings may be signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation, are regulated by Order 29. Suit are filed by or against the Corporation under Rule 1 of Order 29. In suits by or against a Corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation by the Secretary or by any Director or other principal officer of the Corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. A power is also vested in the Courts to require personal attendance of an officer or the authorised person at any stage of the suit to prove the authority or sign the plaint. A power is also vested in the Courts to require personal attendance of an officer or the authorised person at any stage of the suit to prove the authority or sign the plaint. The above provision are permissive in nature and a suit is not to be rejected on the ground of improper verification and signing of the plaint. The power is reposed on the Court to call the principal officer of the Corporation at any stage and cause compliance of the requirement if there any lapses. In United Bank of India (supra) the issue was clearly dealt by the Supreme Court - a company is a juristic person and it requires that some person has to sign the pleading on behalf of the company. The methodology is provided by Order 29 Rule 1. Supreme Court observed that reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority and Power of Attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the Corporation. In addition thereto the dehors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of fee Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Director passing a resolution to that effect or by a Power of Attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in case where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of its office in signing the pleadings. Such rectification can be express or implied. On the basis of evidence on record the Court can after taking all the attending circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial come to the conclusion that the corporation and ractified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer. " The procedures are hand maid of justice. On the basis of evidence on record the Court can after taking all the attending circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial come to the conclusion that the corporation and ractified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer. " The procedures are hand maid of justice. A genuine claim of the party is not to be defeated on mere technically. Learned counsel for an appellant pointed out that both the lapses as referred by were curable in nature and therefore the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit on the above points. In this case, the learned trial Court framed issues namely as to whether the defendant having acquired the tenancy right was not liable to be evicted under the law and was protected by the Assam a (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971. The issue was dealt with by both the Courts in favour of the defendant. Both the Courts while holding that the defendant, a protected tenant did not ascertain as to whether the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 was at all applicable in the instant case. The Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 is enacted to regulate the relation between landlord and tenant in the temporarily settled areas b of Assam. Section 2 of the Act made some exceptions as to its applicability and provided that the Act would not apply to amongst others to the land comprised within estates settled for special cultivation when, and only so long as, such lands are used for purposes of special cultivation or for purposes ancillary thereto. Purposes ancillary to special cultivation is also specified by the statute which also comprised the land used for factory, building staff buildings including labour lines etc. are for the purpose of special cultivation and for the purpose of ancillary thereto. Both the Courts below overlooked this aspect of the matter which event it was, had material bearing in the process of adjudication. 9. Mr. Bhowmik, the learned counsel has pointed out that the defendant was a protected tenant and therefore question of exception of the Act does not arise. The learned trial Court while deciding the issue No. 6 did not address its mind whether the Act was itself applicable on the facts and situation. 9. Mr. Bhowmik, the learned counsel has pointed out that the defendant was a protected tenant and therefore question of exception of the Act does not arise. The learned trial Court while deciding the issue No. 6 did not address its mind whether the Act was itself applicable on the facts and situation. The learned trial Court only referred the evidence of the witnesses as to the existence of the structures those were raised by the defendant. The Court did not go further to ascertain as to whether continuous possession of the party can confer a protection to a person in those land as per law. Same mistake was also committed by the learned appellate Court. 10. In view of the findings discussed above, I am of the view that the matter be sent back to the appellate Court to decide the appeal on merit, in the light of the discussion referred to above. The learned appellate Court amongst others shall also go into on the facts and circumstances as to whether the defendant was entitled for protection as tenant on the face of the section 2 (e) of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act. 11. Subject to the observation made above the second appeal is allowed to the extent indicated. There shall however be no order as to costs.