Tukaram & Ors VS. State Of Karnataka

Extract

---

Tukaram & Ors VS. State Of Karnataka

The Judgement Information System REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5136 OF 2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 5855/07) Smt. Leelabai Gajanan Pansare & Ors. v.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. with Civil Appeal Nos.5137-5138/08 @ SLP (C) No. 24789-24790/07 and Civil Appeal No. 5139/08 @ SLP (C) No. 16237/08.

JUDGMENT

S. H. KAPADIA, J.

Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 5855/07 and S.L.P. (C) No.

16237/08: Leave granted.

2. Applications for interventions are allowed.

3. An important question of law regarding interpretation of Section 3(1) (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is involved in the present appeal, namely:-

"Whether a Government Company falls within the compendious expression "any public sector undertakings or corporation established by or under any Central or

2 State Act" in Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ("Rent Act" in short)."

4. For the sake of convenience we may state the facts of the case in SLP (C) No. 5855/07 in the case of Leelabai Gajanan Pansare & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

Facts: 5-landlords had let out the suit-premises admeasuring 3214 sq. ft. (approx.) in Thane to Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ("OIC" for short). The rent was Rs. 10,000/- per month. Vide notice dated 15.4.2002 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, appellant terminated the tenancy of the said Company. On failure of OIC to vacate the premises, they instituted a suit for eviction. OIC took the plea that it is not covered under Section 3(1)(b) of the Rent Act as it was "a protected tenant" under the said Rent Act, 1999 and, therefore, could not be evicted. In the said suit, the landlord pleaded that OIC is a Public Sector Undertaking and/or Corporation having a total paid up share capital of more than Rs.

1,00,00,000.

6. OIC resisted the suit by filing its written statement inter alia contending that it is neither a PSU nor a Corporation; that it was not

3 exempted under Section 3(1)(b) of the Rent Act; that it was neither a bank nor a PSU, nor a foreign mission, nor MNC and nor a public limited company having paid up share capital of more than Rs. 1,00,00,000.

According to OIC, it was a Government company carrying on its own insurance business and that the premises let to it stood fully protected by the provisions of the Rent Act as they did not fall in any of the categories mentioned in Section 3(1)(b) of the said Rent Act.

7. By Judgment and Order dated 9.7.2004 in Special Civil Suit No.

202/03 the trial court held that OIC is a Government company under Section 617 of the 1956 Act over which the GOI has overall control qua insurance business. The trial court further held that OIC stood established as a subsidiary of GIC that came into existence in 1972 pursuant to nationalization of General Insurance. According to the trial court since OIC is a Government company under Section 617 of the 1956 Act and since GOI has overall control over its functioning, it is entitled to protection from eviction by the landlords under Section 3(1)(a) which gives protection to premises let to the Government or local authority or to premises taken on behalf of the Government. In other words, according to the trial court, since GOI exercises deep and pervasive control over the respondent company herein, the said premises occupied by it were entitled to protection under the

4 second part of Section 3(1)(a). According to the said Judgment and Order dated 9.7.2004 the said suit stood dismissed by the trial court.

8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the trial court, appellants herein preferred an appeal being FA No. 1245/04. By the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2006, the Bombay High Court held that exempted premises under Section 3(1)(b) of the Rent Act, 1999 are PSUs but not Government Companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was further held that a Government Company stands in a different category and by the very absence of the words "Government Company" in Section 3 (1)(b) it is clear that the Legislature did not intend their exemption from the protection under the said Rent Act, 1999 consequently, the High Court dismissed FA No. 1245/04 filed by the appellants. Hence, this civil appeal.

Contentions: 9. The basic ground of challenge in this civil appeal that the High Court having held that OIC is the PSU had erred in holding that a Government Company stood under a separate category which is absent in Section 3(1)(b) and thus continues to enjoy protection of the said Rent Act. According to the appellants, this amounts to judicial legislation by the High Court as the High Court has read into Section 3(1)(b) the words, namely, "except Government companies". According to the appellants, by such exclusion of

5 Government companies from the PSUs, the High Court has excluded a large number of PSUs from the purview of Section 3(1)(b), which is not the intention of the Legislature. T...

See the full content of this document

---