2011 Supreme(SC) 862

2011 (6) Supreme 386
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
The National Textile Corporation Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7448 of 2011
Decided on : 5-9-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. A party has to take proper pleadings and prove the same by adducing sufficient evidence. No evidence can be permitted to be adduced on a issue unless factual foundation has been laid down in respect of the same.
2. It is a settled legal proposition that an agent cannot be sued where the principal is known.

Headnote:Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999- Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 - Section 3(1) (a)- Execution of lease deed for a period of 99 years in respect of suit premises in favour of a company H- Leasehold rights in respect of suit property stood transferred twice again and ultimately to Poddar Cotton Mills Ltd.- Lease expired by efflux of time on 22.10.1990- Said Poddar Mills continued as a tenant by holding over the suit premises-Suit for eviction filed by Trust against appellant-Suit decreed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs -Appeal- Dismissed by Appellate court -Revision-Dismissed-Appeal-Plea of appellant that on the expiry of lease of 99 years on 22.10.1990, Act 1947 was in force, the then tenant, Poddar Mills became the statutory tenant and that such tenancy rights stood vested absolutely in the Central Government on commencement of the Act 1995 by operation of law-Appellant’s case that it stepped in the shoes of Central Government merely as an agent, thus, Central Government remained the tenant- The Central Government continued to be a tenant in the suit premises and would be protected in terms of Section 3(1) (a) of the Act 1999 being premises let out to the Government- Instantly no reference had ever been made by appellant to the effect of the provisions of the Act 1995 before the trial court while filing the written submissions- Neither any issue had been framed,nor arguments had been advanced in regard to the same- This issue had not been agitated either before appellate court or revisional court- Appellant ought to have taken a plea in the written statement that it was merely an ‘agent’ of Central Government, thus suit against it was not maintainable- Appellant miserably failed to take required pleadings for the purpose-Since there being absence of proper pleadings by appellant ,no evidence could be allowed-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 13, 14)

        Pleadings-Significance of - Pleadings and particulars are necessary to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial- Therefore, the pleadings are more of help to the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue- It is a settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted”- A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties- The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ (Para 7)

        Words and Phrases –Government-The Government loosely means the body of persons authorized to administer the affairs of, or to govern, a State- It commands and its decision becomes binding upon the members of the society-Government includes, both the Central Government as well as the State Government-The government is impersonal in character having three independent functionaries as its branches- It performs legal and sovereign functions, which are not alienable to any other person, e.g. defence, security, currency etc.- Government means a group of people responsible for governing the country- It consists of the activities, methods and principles involved in governing a country or other political unit-The Government is a body that governs and exercises control by issuing directions and is not governed by any other agency- It is a body politic that formulates policies and the laws by which a civil society is controlled- It is a political concept formulated to rule the nation- It is not a profit and loss establishment- (Para 15)

        Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999- Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 - Section 3(1) (a)- Execution of lease deed for a period of 99 years in respect of suit premises in favour of a company H- Leasehold rights in respect of suit property stood transferred twice again and ultimately to Poddar Cotton Mills Ltd.- Lease expired by efflux of time on 22.10.1990- Said Poddar Mills continued as a tenant by holding over the suit premises-Suit for eviction filed by Trust against appellant-Suit decreed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs -Appeal- Dismissed by Appellate court -Revision-Dismissed-Appeal-Held appellant may be called ‘agency’ or ‘instrumentality’ of the Central Government for a limited purpose, namely to label it to be the “State” within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution- However, even by stretch of imagination, appellant could not be held to be an ‘agent’ of Central Government -Appellant was neither the government nor the department of the government, but a Government Company-Appellant could not identify itself with Central Government- Appellant was being controlled by the provisions of the Act 1995 and not by the Central Government- It was not permissible for appellant to canvass that Central Government had any concern so far as tenancy rights were concerned-Right vested in the Central Government stood transferred and vested in the appellant- Both are separate legal entities and are not synonymous-The appellant being neither the government nor government department could not agitate that as it had been substituted in place of Central Government, and acts merely as an agent of the Central Government, thus protection of the Act 1999 is available to it- Appellant held not entitled for exemption under Section 3(1)(a) or 3(1)(b) of the Act 1999-Appeal dismissed (Paras 22 to 30)

        Words and Phrases- Vesting’ -Vesting’ means having obtained an absolute and indefeasible right- It refers to and is used for transfer or conveyance- ‘Vesting’ in the general sense, means vesting in possession- However, ‘Vesting’ does not necessarily and always means possession but includes vesting of interest as well- ‘Vesting’ may mean vesting in title, vesting in possession or vesting in a limited sense, as indicated in the context in which it is used in a particular provision of the Act- Word ‘Vest’ has different shades, taking colour from the context in which it is used- It does not necessarily mean absolute vesting in every situation and is capable of bearing the meaning of a limited vesting, being limited, in title as well as duration- Thus, the word ‘vest’ clothes varied colours from the context and situation in which the word came to be used in the statute- The expression ‘vest’ is a word of ambiguous import since it has no fixed connotation and the same has to be understood in a different context under different set of circumstances (Para 27)

       Facts of the Case :

        A lease deed was executed herein in the instant case for a period of 99 years in respect of suit premises in favour of a company H. Leasehold rights in respect of suit property stood transferred twice again and ultimately to Poddar Cotton Mills Ltd. Lease expired by efflux of time on 22.10.1990. Said Poddar Mills continued as a tenant by holding over the suit premises. Suit for eviction was filed by Trust against appellant. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs .Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by Appellate court .Revision was also Dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court. Plea of appellant that on the expiry of lease of 99 years on 22.10.1990, Act 1947 was in force, the then tenant, Poddar Mills became the statutory tenant and that such tenancy rights stood vested absolutely in the Central Government on commencement of the Act 1995 by operation of law. Appellant’s case that it stepped in the shoes of Central Government merely as an agent, thus, Central Government remained the tenant. The Central Government continued to be a tenant in the suit premises and would be protected in terms of Section 3(1) (a) of the Act 1999 being premises let out to the Government.

       Findings of the Court :

        The Court held that no reference had ever been made by appellant to the effect of the provisions of the Act 1995 before the trial court while filing the written submissions. Neither any issue had been framed, nor arguments had been advanced in regard to the same. This issue had not been agitated either before appellate court or revisional court. Appellant ought to have taken a plea in the written statement that it was merely an ‘agent’ of Central Government, thus suit against it was not maintainable. Appellant miserably failed to take required pleadings for the purpose. Since there being absence of proper pleadings by appellant ,no evidence could be allowed.

        Appellant may be called ‘agency’ or ‘instrumentality’ of the Central Government for a limited purpose, namely to label it to be the “State” within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. However, even by stretch of imagination, appellant could not be held to be an ‘agent’ of Central Government .Appellant was neither the government nor the department of the government, but a Government Company. Appellant could not identify itself with Central Government. Appellant was being controlled by the provisions of the Act 1995 and not by the Central Government- It was not permissible for appellant to canvass that Central Government had any concern so far as tenancy rights were concerned. Right vested in the Central Government stood transferred and vested in the appellant. Both are separate legal entities and are not synonymous. The appellant being neither the government nor government department could not agitate that as it had been substituted in place of Central Government, and acts merely as an agent of the Central Government, thus protection of the Act 1999 is available to it. Appellant held not entitled for exemption under Section 3(1)(a) or 3(1)(b) of the Act 1999.Appeal was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed