Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 368
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
M/s Unichem Laboratories Ltd. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Rani Devi & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No. 5335 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.11472/2013)
WITH
M/s Unichem Laboratories Ltd. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Amar Kaur & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No. 5336 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.13070/2013)
AND
M/s Unichem Laboratories Ltd. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Rajesh Mohan Kapil – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No. 5337 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.27328/2014)
Decided On : 18-04-2017
IMPORTANT POINTS
Eviction suit not barred by section 13.
Contract of tenancy between employer and employee terminates on cessation of employment
Headnote:(a) The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Housing Act, 1955 – Section 13 r/w Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Eviction suit being a civil suit, Civil Court having jurisdiction to try instant suit. (Para 19, 24)
(b) Rent laws – Appellant employing the respondent – Allotting quarter to respondent – Deducting rent from respondent’s salary – Tenancy agreement established – Appellant competent to maintain eviction suit. (Para 28)
(c) Tenancy law – Employer-employee – Quarters – Contract of tenancy between employer and employee – Terminates on cessation of employment – Instantly employee not vacating his quarter even after retirement – His widow continuing to occupy the quarter – Occupation unauthorised – Section 630, Companies Act. (Para 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
Respondent No.1's husband-Dharam Dev Yadav was in the employment of the appellant as industrial worker. He was working in the appellant's industrial unit. The appellant allotted a quarter in the industrial colony at Ghaziabad to Dharam Dev Yadav on submitting declaration as required under the Act/Rule.
Dharam Dev Yadav retired from the appellant's service on 12.01.1992. He was granted him time to vacate the quarter on or before 30.06.1992 on humanitarian ground. Dharam Dev Yadav did not vacate the quarter after expiry of six months and continued to remain in its occupation. In the meantime, he died leaving behind his wife (respondent No. 1 herein) who also continued to remain in the occupation of the quarter along with her family members.
The appellant filed a civil suit in the year 2001 against the respondents. The suit was for respondent's eviction from the quarter in question and also for claiming damages for its use and occupation payable from 30.06.1992.
The Trial Court decreed the appellant’s suit and passed eviction decree against the respondents.
The defendants filed revision before the High Court which was allowed.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J
S.L.P.(c) No. 11472 of 2013
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 15.10.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 441 of 2012 whereby the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the judgment/decree dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad, U.P. in SCC No. 39 of 2001.
3) The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
4) The appellant is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act. Its registered office is at Mumbai. The appellant has one industrial unit at Industrial Area, Meerut Road in Ghaziabad (UP).
5) The State of U.P. has enacted an Act called "The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Housing Act, 1955" (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”). The object of this Act is to provide housing to industrial workers by the State or local authorities working in the industries in the State of UP.
6) Some Sections of the Act, which are relevant for this case, need mention. Section 3 provides that the Act shall apply to those houses which are constructed by the State or the authorities specified in the Section for the occupation of the Industrial workers under the Industrial Housing Scheme subsidized by the Central Government or any Scheme notified in the Official Gazette. Section 4 empowers the State Government to appoint Labour Commissioner to exercise the powers under the Act in relation to the houses and other matters specified therein. Section 7 specifies the duties of the Labour Commissioner. Sections 10 and 11 deal with allotment of houses and the manner in which the allotment is to be made. Section 12 specifies the conditions of occupation of the houses by the allottees. Section 13 deals with the bar of jurisdiction of the Court and provides that no order made by the State or Labour Commissioner under the Act would be called in question in any Court and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or any authority in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. Sections 15 and 16 empower the Labour Commissioner to fix the rates of rent and the manner of its payment. Section 18 empowers the Labour Commissioner to enter into any house for the purpose of administering or carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 20 enables the employer of the allottee to enter into an agreement with the Labour Commissioner for recovery of rent every month from the salary of their employee(allottee). Section 21 so long as it was a part of the Act (since deleted w.e.f 28.4.72) had empowered the Labour Commissioner to evict any allottee from the allotted house on the grounds specified therein. Section 22 provides a right of appeal to the State against the order of Labour Commissioner. Section 28 provides rule-making power to carry out the provisions of the Act. This, in substance, is the Scheme of the Act.
7) The State Government constructed several houses in accordance with the provisions of the Act and allotted, quarter Nos. 5,6,7,8,11 and 12 in Block No. 59 at Industrial Labour Colony, Ghaziabad to the appellant vide order dated 29.04.1971 so as to enable the appellant to allot these houses/quarters to the workers for their use and occupation while they were in the appellant's employment. The allotment order issued by the State, inter alia, provided that, (1) monthly rent of each quarter would be Rs. 23/-; (2) The quarters would be used only for residence by the eligible worker; (3) The allottee of the quarter shall deposit security money of Rs. 46/-per quarter and will also execute agreement as prescribed before occupying the quarter; and (4) In the event, it is found that the allotment is made to ineligible worker, his tenancy shall cease attracting penal action as provided under the Act/Rules etc.
8) Respondent No.1's husband-Dharam De
