Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 468 (ALL)

Akhilesh Purwar v. Chaturbhuj Agrawal

2015-03-11

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2015
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and Sri K.K.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It is not disputed between the parties that the Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable in the present dispute. The tenancy was in the name of M/s. Pitron Communication Private Limited. Sri Akhilesh Purwar, who was the Director of the Company was staying in the premises although the said premise was let out to the Company and a notice determining the tenancy was served on 1.9.2011. The service of notice has also been proved upon Sri Akhilesh Purwar. Since the Rent Control Act is not applicable the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act are applicable which requires only one month's notice and the notice has been accepted and after one month the tenancy stood determined. 3. Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the tenancy was in the name of the Company whereas the notice was served upon Sri Akhilesh Purwal in his individual capacity and, therefore, it is not a notice under Section 106 of the Act and, therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. He has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. M/s. Lakshmi Industrial and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 2001 Allahabad 28 wherein it has been held that the Company is a juristic person and different from its members and the Company can sue and be sued in its own name. Relying on the aforesaid decision, Mr. Tripathi, Advocate submits that since the company was the tenant, the notice upon the Director of the Company is not sufficient notice on the tenant. He has further relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay reported in AIR 1955 SC 74 . In the aforesaid case the dispute arose under the Income Tax Act wherein similar view has been taken that the Company is a juristic person and can sue and be sued in its own name. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 5. The law as has been relied upon cannot be disputed that the Company is a juristic person. But the Company acts through Board of Directors or the otherwise. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 5. The law as has been relied upon cannot be disputed that the Company is a juristic person. But the Company acts through Board of Directors or the otherwise. The premises were let out to the Company and one of the Director of the Company was residing in the premises upon whom the notice was served. 6. Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act what is relevant is that the notice should have been given to the tenant about the intention of the landlord to determine the tenancy. Since the notice has duly been served upon the Director, it cannot be said that there was no notice to the Company. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the court below. The revision, having no merit, is dismissed. 8. At this stage Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, however, submits that some time may be allowed to the revisionists to vacate the premises. Sri K.K.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection if three months time is allowed to vacate the premises and to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord. Therefore, three months time is allowed from today to the revisionists to vacate the premises and to hand over peaceful possession of the same to the landlord. It is provided that for the extension of time as has been allowed by this Court, the revisionists may make necessary application before court below and the court below will thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.