Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1211 (MP)

Anil Kumar Singhai v. Vimal Chand Jain

2013-10-04

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : The applicant/tenant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal in caseNo.08/RCA/2009-10, whereby an order of eviction was directed against the applicant for a shop having measurement9.6' X 13.6', situated at house No.16-A, New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant who was a retired employee of State Bank of Indore has filed an application under section 23 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act for ejectment of the respondent from the aforesaid shop on the basis of the necessity. In the application, he gave the explanation about the other accommodation available to him. After filing of reply to the application, he modified the application that neither a talk took place for enhancement of the rent, nor his daughter started her business in the year 2001. It was pleaded that the daughter of the applicant/landlord had started her business in the name of her mother but, since 1996 she was doing her regular business. 3. In reply to the application filed by the landlord, the present applicant/tenant has submitted a reply that there was no bonafide need to the landlord. He could start his shop in the construction, which had proper shutters and itwas being used as a garage. Also, he could use the shop of his daughter. After retirement, he disposed off the second shop by giving it to his daughter and therefore, the land lordhad an alternate accommodation and he did not have any need to get the suit accommodation evicted. It was also objected that the landlord did not fall within the purview of landlord under section 23-J of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'MPACA') and therefore, it was prayed that the application for ejectment may be dismissed. 4. The learned Rent Controlling Authority, after getting the evidence recorded, decided each and every issue in his order dated 26.2.2010 and an order of eviction was granted. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has raisedan objection that the landlord was not within the purview of landlord as required under section 23-J of MPACA because he was retired as an employee of State Bank of Indore. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has raisedan objection that the landlord was not within the purview of landlord as required under section 23-J of MPACA because he was retired as an employee of State Bank of Indore. Thereliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of “Ranjit Narayan Haksar Vs. Surendra Verma”, [(1994) JLJ 740] and also an order passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of “Surindra Verma Vs. Ranjeet Narayan Haksar”, [(1995) JLJ 460] in which the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was confirmed and thereafter, referring the various provisions of sections 38, 45, 62, 63 etc. of State Bank of Indore (Subsidiary banks) Act, 1959 (hereinafter it will be referred to as “Special Act”), it is submitted that the State Bank of Indore was not under control of either Central Government or State Government and therefore, the applicant does not fall within the purview of landlord as required by section 23-J of MPACA. It is further submitted that the applicant has no need of the shop. He disposed off his available accommodation after his retirement and he had alternate accommodation with him to run his business, if he so desires and therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the trial Court may be set aside. To show the control of government, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in cases of “State of Mysore Vs.Allum Karibasappa and others”, [ AIR 1974 SC 1863 ] and “State of U.P. and others Vs. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh etc. [ AIR 1989 SC 997 ]. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to sections 3, 4, 11, 38, 45 and 62 of the Special Act to show that the State Bank of Indore was under control of the Central Government and therefore, the respondent was the landlord within the purview of section 23-J of MPACA. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to sections 3, 4, 11, 38, 45 and 62 of the Special Act to show that the State Bank of Indore was under control of the Central Government and therefore, the respondent was the landlord within the purview of section 23-J of MPACA. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in cases of Ranjit Narayan Haksar (supra) and order passed by the single Bench of this Court in case of “Fazal Abbas and others Vs. Shiv Ram Sharma, [(2003) 3 M.P.L.J. 403], in which it is found that a retired employee of State Bank of Indore is a landlord under section 23-J of MPACA. It is further submitted that the shop was given to the daughter of the respondent, prior to his retirement and thereafter, it was the wish of the landlord to get suit accommodation shop vacated for his own business. Alleged garage was not a suitable alternate accommodation to the landlord. The choice of the tenant cannot be imposed upon the landlord and he could get the suitable accommodation vacated for his bonafide need. Therefore, it is prayed that no illegality or infirmity has been done by the learned Rent Controlling Authority in passing the impugned order. Hence, the order may be confirmed. 8. After perusal of various issues framed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority and submissions advanced by the learned senior Advocates of the parties, there are only 3 points to be decided in the present case. Firstly, as to whether the respondent falls within the purview of landlord under section 23-J of MPACA? Secondly, whether the respondent requires the suit accommodation for his own business? And thirdly, whether he has any alternate accommodation for that purpose or not? 9. The learned senior Advocates for the parties have placed reliance upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ranjeet Narayan Haksar (supra), in which it was held:- “There is nothing in the language or context of Section 23-J(ii) indicating any intention to give arestricted meaning to the expression 'company'. Thelegislature did not refer to the Companies Act in Section 23-J(ii) and did not specifically exclude statutory corporation. Thelegislature did not refer to the Companies Act in Section 23-J(ii) and did not specifically exclude statutory corporation. The expression 'company' has been used in its general legal sense and takes in Government owned or controlled statutory Corporations. We hold that retired employee of a Government owned or controlled statutory corporation is a landlord as defined in Section23J(ii) of the Act.” The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court was confirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Surinder Verma (supra). Hence, it is the settled view of Division Bench of this Court and Hon'ble the Apex Court that a company includes a corporation or statutory corporation for the purpose of section 23-J of MPACA. It is admitted that the State Bank of Indore is a statutory corporation and a banking company. According to the provisions of section 2 of the Special Act 'Bank of Indore' was notified as 'State Bank of Indore' and therefore, it was a statutory corporation in the eye of law. As submitted by the learned senior Advocate for the applicant, if provisions of sections 38, 45, 62 and 63 of the Special Act are perused then, these provisions deal with the working of the State Bank of Indore but, when a corporation is incorporated then, for its working, it is an independent corporation and therefore, by the provisions relating to working of the corporation, no conclusion can be drawn that whether it is controlled by any Government or not. In this connection, if the provisions of section 62 of the Special Act are perused then, they provide for rule making power to the Central Government. However, it could be said that if any enactment has been passed by the Parliament then, rulemaking power is to be given to the Central Government. 10. However, according to section 38 (9) and 38 (10) of the Special Act, it would be apparent that the Central Government had power upon such subsidiary banks that at any point of time, if it is found that any other suitable person to take over the management of the institution for the purpose of winding upon its affairs and distributing its assets then it can pass such an order. Also, the Central Government was empowered to issue directions to that suitable person relating to various provisions affecting the rights and property of the subsidiary bank. Also, the Central Government was empowered to issue directions to that suitable person relating to various provisions affecting the rights and property of the subsidiary bank. Similarly, according to the provisions of section 45 of the Special Act, power of removing the difficulties was kept by the Central Government. After considering the provisions of section 38(9), 38 (10), 45 and 62, it would be apparent that the Central Government has a control over the State Bank of Indore. In this connection, the order passed by the single Bench of this Court in case of Fazal Abbas (supra) may be referred, in which it was held that according to the provisions of section9 of the Special Act, control of Central Government was found on the State Bank of Indore. That order was related with State Bank of Indore itself and that order is not over ruled. The law laid by Hon'ble the Apex Court in cases of State of Mysore (supra) and State of U.P. (supra) is related to the control over the private companies and not for a statutory subsidiary bank hence, it cannot be applied in the present case. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the State Bank of Indore was a banking company incorporated by the Special Act. It is under the control of the Central Government and therefore, the respondent was the landlord within the category of section23-J of MPACA. 11. It is apparent from the record that the learned Rent Controlling Authority found on the basis of the evidence laid by the parties that the daughter of the respondent was running a shop given by the respondent since the year 1996and the respondent retired thereafter. Under such circumstances, that accommodation was not available to the respondent for his business. Similarly, one garage was also available to the respondent but, that was not a shop and its opening was in a small street. Therefore, no shop could be run in that accommodation. Under such circumstances, the learned Rent Controlling Authority has rightly observed that the respondent did not have any suitable accommodation with him. It is duly established by the evidence that after retirement of the respondent, he did not rent out any of his accommodation for non residential purpose. He is a retired officer, who received the gratuity etc. and therefore, he has sufficient funds to run a shop. It is duly established by the evidence that after retirement of the respondent, he did not rent out any of his accommodation for non residential purpose. He is a retired officer, who received the gratuity etc. and therefore, he has sufficient funds to run a shop. The witnesses examined by the applicant (defendant) about letting out the accommodation of the respondent, were found disbelievable. If there is a suit pending for eviction against a previous tenant then, the landlord cannot think of getting possession of the property in near future and there was no possibility that the landlord would have talked to someone to re-let that property and therefore, the learned Rent Controlling Authority has rightly rejected the evidence given by one Raja Bhaiya Jain. Under such circumstances, the learned Rent Controlling Authority has rightly found that the respondent was in need of the suit accommodation. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the respondent was the landlord within the purview of section 23-J of MPACA and therefore, he could file an application for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority. His bonafide need is established and it is also established that he did not have any alternate accommodation suitable to him. Therefore, the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, appears to be correct. There is no illegality or infirmity visible in the impugned order, so that the revision filed by the applicant/tenant can be accepted. Consequently, there vision filed by the applicant/tenant Shri Anil Kumar Singhai is hereby dismissed with costs. The applicant shall also bear the cost of the respondent. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly. Fees of the Advocates be computed @Rs.10,000/-, if certified. 13. A copy of the order be sent to the Rent Controlling Authority alongwith its record for information and compliance.