2010 Supreme(SC) 476

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM and J.M. PANCHAL
M/s Speedline Agencies .... Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s T. Stanes & Co. Ltd. .... Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 29478 of 2009
Decided on : MAY 14, 2010.

Headnote:(a) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 10 (3) (a) (i) and (iii) r/w sections 391 to 394, Companies Act, 1956 – Effect of amalgamation with another company – Tenant company and landlord company – Tenant transferor company loses its identity – Case of tenant company falls under mischief of Section 10(2)(ii)(a) – Amalgamation without written consent of landlord would result in forfeiture of tenancy – Landlord company, as in present case, even on amalgamation does not lose its rights. (Para 14)

       (1986) 2 SCC 656; (2004) 7 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (1981) 3 SCC 103; 1990 (Supp) SCC 675; (2004) 9 SCC 438 – Distinguished

       (b) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 10 (3) (a) (i) and (iii) – In case of tenant company cause of action arises for landlord if the tenant company amalgamates without his consent – Landlord company, as instantly, has its own cause of action, like personal need as instantly – Its amalgamation has no relation to cause of action – Order of eviction crystallizing rights of the landlord company – More so when amalgamation takes place after order of eviction – Could not be re-opened in revision. (Para 15)

       (c) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 10 (3) (a) (i) and (iii) – Subsequent events – Subsequent events are not matters of automatic cognizance by Supreme Court or a mandate on the courts below – On amalgamation rights of transferor company under the decree for eviction devolves on the amalgamated company – Transferee company entitled to maintain suit for eviction filed by transferor company – Moreover taking subsequent event presently would inflict hardship on landlord. (Para 17, 18)

       (2004) 5 SCC 772; (2008) 1 SCC 330; (2001) 2 SCC 604; (1973) 1 SCC 688; (2002) 5 SCC 397 – Relied upon

       (d) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 25 – Revision – Powers of High Court are limited, not as wide as appellate powers – Under section 25 High Court does not act as second appellate court – Taking subsequent events occurring during pendency of revision proceeding into consideration – Not proper. (Para 26)

       AIR 1941 F.C. 5; (1980) 4 SCC 259 – Relied upon

       (e) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 10 (3) (a) (i) and (iii) – Expression "for its own use/occupation" – Should be construed widely – A company wanting to expand its business and amalgamating with another company, would also be a case of "for its own use". (Para 27)

       (f) Interpretation of statutes – If in a case of landlord requiring the premises for its own use, to amalgamate with another company and expands its business, the rent control legislation may clash with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Provisions of Rent Control Act should not be so construed as to frustrate and defeat Act – Rent Control Act has to be interpreted harmoniously with the other Acts – The interpretation should not result in the one Act destroying a right under the other Act. (Para 27)

       (g) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 10 (3) (a) (i) and (iii) r/w Order XXI, rule 16, CPC – Landlord company requiring premises for its own business and for residential purposes of its employees – Requirement continuing to exist also for the transferee company to which entire business of transferor company stood transferred – Decree crystallizing rights of eviction of transferor/transferee company – Stay of decree – Company entitled to execution of decree on vacation of stay – Amalgamation order also preserving the said right. (Para 28, 30)

       (h) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 10(3)(iii), first Proviso – Has no application to pending revisions – Landlord “not occupying” the building being requisite for application, Proviso to Section 10(3)(iii) not applicable instantly. (Para 32)

       (i) Constitution of India – Article 136 – New plea – Plea not taken in courts below – Cannot be taken for the first time before Supreme Court. (Para 32)

       (j) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 29 – Requirement of landlord not strictly falling in any provision of section 10 – Yet eviction of tenant reasonable – Section 29 coming to rescue enabling Government to grant exemption of the building concerned so that the landlord may be entitled to evict the tenant under the ordinary remedy of suit. (Para 33)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant took the suit premises with a building on lease for use as residence-cum- office from M/s United Coffee Supply Co. Ltd., for a period of five years on a monthly rental of Rs.400/-. On the expiry of the period, the lease was further renewed for a period of five years. On failure to renew the lease further, the appellant instituted a suit for specific performance of the renewal clause in the lease agreement.

       A settlement was arrived at whereby the appellant agreed to pay fair rent of Rs.1200/- w.e.f. 1.10.1975.

       In the meantime, Government of Tamil Nadu brought into force the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Under the provisions of the said Act, ceiling was fixed regarding extent of vacant land which may be owned by a person and Government had the right to take possession of the excess land over the ceiling limit. On 13.09.1978, the erstwhile landlord-company applied for exemption from acquisition of excess vacant lands. On 04.11.1981, the erstwhile landlord company was granted partial exemption from acquisition of vacant lands.

       On 25.06.1986 the partial exemption earlier granted was reviewed and extended to the entire extent of the suit premises.

       In 1984, the landlord-company filed RCOP claiming monthly rental of Rs. 9500/- retrospectively from 01.10.1980. However, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent as Rs.6465/- from 1.10.1980. The appellant filed R.C.A. whereunder the rent was fixed as Rs.7852/- on 19.12.2001 which is currently being paid.

       On 15.09.1985, the name of the landlord- company, M/s United Coffee Supply Co. Ltd. was changed to Stanes Tea and Coffee Ltd.

       Stanes Tea and Coffee Ltd. filed RCOP on 03.04.1987 on the ground that it required the building and premises for their own use and occupation and for providing residential accommodation to its employees and that vacant areas were required for agency, warehouses and research and development building, office quarters and amenities for staff such as garage, cycle stand, staff recreation club, community hall etc. The Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed eviction of the appellant.

       The appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed. Against the said order, the appellant filed C.R.P. before the High Court. During the pendency of the said C.R.P. before the High Court, by a Scheme of Amalgamation, M/s Stanes Tea and Coffee Limited was transferred to M/s T. Stanes & Company Ltd., with effect from 01.04.2005 and this was duly approved by the High Court. Thereafter, an application for amendment of the cause title was filed which was also duly allowed by the High Court.

       On 05.08.2009, the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant herein.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no valid ground for interference.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.