Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.A.CHOUDHARY
In the matter of B.H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Vessles Ltd., Visakhapatnam - Respondent
Decided On : 03-01-85
PUBLIC PREMISES EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS ACT, 1971 - SECTION 115, CPC - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - REVISION PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - FAILURE OF JUSTICE - EQUITY JURISDICTION - OWNERSHIP RIGHTS - SOCIALIST CONCEPT - STATE ACTION DOCTRINE - COMPANY QUARTER - WIFE'S OCCUPATION - HUSBAND'S MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION - COMPANY'S LEGAL RIGHTS - INTERIM INJUNCTION - JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The husband, an employee of a wholly Government-owned company, took on lease from that company, a quarter where he set up his family. Differences developed between the husband and wife, leading to their estrangement and the wife going to court charging her husband with criminal neglect to maintain her and her three minor children. The husband obtained a decree against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights, but the wife refused to live with him. The husband terminated the lease of the quarter and informed the company that he should not be held liable for the payment of rent for that quarter. The company started pressing the wife to vacate the quarter. The wife filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the company and her husband from evicting her and her minor children from the company quarter. The District Court granted an interim injunction restraining the company from evicting the wife and her children, except in due course of law. The company filed a Civil Revision Petition against the order of injunction passed by the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Civil Revision Petition was not maintainable against the interlocutory order passed by the District Judge. The court held that the order did not occasion failure of justice, as the company and the husband did not suffer any irreparable injury by the order, and the wife's occupation of the quarter was recognized by the company and the husband for many years. The court also held that the company's legal rights as the owner of the quarter should not be used to exploit the wife's misfortune and cause her and her children undeserved suffering. The court further held that the common law concept of ownership rights, which emphasizes the relationship between the owner and the object, is not suitable for a Socialist Republic, where ownership rights are seen as a relationship between persons and the exercise of ownership rights is considered a form of power that can affect the rights of others. The court also held that the doctrine of State Action applies to the courts, and therefore, the courts are bound by constitutional limitations and prohibitions while enforcing ownership rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Revision Petition was maintainable against the interlocutory order passed by the District Judge? 2. Whether the interim injunction granted by the District Court occasioned failure of justice? 3. Whether the company's legal rights as the owner of the quarter should be used to exploit the wife's misfortune and cause her and her children undeserved suffering? 4. Whether the common law concept of ownership rights is suitable for a Socialist Republic? 5. Whether the doctrine of State Action applies to the courts?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Civil Revision Petition was not maintainable against the interlocutory order passed by the District Judge because: - The order did not occasion failure of justice, as the company and the husband did not suffer any irreparable injury by the order, and the wife's occupation of the quarter was recognized by the company and the husband for many years. - The company's legal rights as the owner of the quarter should not be used to exploit the wife's misfortune and cause her and her children undeserved suffering. 2. The common law concept of ownership rights, which emphasizes the relationship between the owner and the object, is not suitable for a Socialist Republic, where ownership rights are seen as a relationship between persons and the exercise of ownership rights is considered a form of power that can affect the rights of others. 3. The doctrine of State Action applies to the courts, and therefore, the courts are bound by constitutional limitations and prohibitions while enforcing ownership rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
( 1 ) INTRODUCTION : sodam Kohinoor was married to Sodam Prasadarao and has three minor children. The husband is an employee of M/s. Bharat Heavy Plates and Vessels Limited, Visakhapatnam, which is a wholly Government owned and controlled company and is, therefore, an instrumentality of the State, within the meaning of Part III of the Constitution. The husband took on lease from that company, presumably on subsidised rates, quarter No. F-134 owned by that company where he set up his family. While the husband and wife were living together in that quarter which was made their matrimonial home by the apparent consent of the company, differences developed between them, leading to their estrangement and finally to the wife going to a court charging her husband with criminal neglect to maintain her and her three minor children. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur, who inquired into that Charge in M. C. No. 70/80 upheld the wife s contention and granted maintenance decree. Under that order, the husband was made liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- to his wife and Rs. 100/- to his minor children per month from 1-11-1981, The husband appears to have obtained a decree against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights. But the wife says that although she is willing to live with her husband the husband had never come to her. Apparently the husband is living away from the company quarter. The result is that the wife with her minor children is living alone in the above quarter belonging to the Company. Retaliation:
( 2 ) ON 15-1-1981 the Husband by his letter addressed to the company took what is clearly a retaliatory action against the wife and the children. On that day, he terminated the lease of the above quarter No. 134 which was in his name. The husband informed the company that he should not any longer be held liable for the payment of rent for that quarter. On receipt of the above letter from the husband, the company had started pressing the wife to vacate the above mentioned quarter belonging to the company. It could not have been unknown to the company that the husband was motivated by a desire to drive out his wife and children from the company quarter. Ignoring the husband s motive the company went on pressing the wife to vacate the quarter. For doing so, the justification of the company is purely legal. The company says that it was losing rent on the quarter which it was hitherto deducting from the salary of the husband, but which it could no longer collect from the salary of the husband. As in law there was never any privity of contract nor privity of estate with the wife, the company thought, that the continued stay of the wife and her children in the company quarter had become unauthorised and unlawful. Treating the possession of the wife and the children as unlawful, the company asked the wife to vacate the quarter. Nice legal points apart, Visakhapatnam which is undoubtedly a city of the future, is today one of the costliest places in India to live in. For the ordinary people, living accommodation is very hard to secure there. The wife having no other place to go was not too ready and willing to vacate the quarter. By necessity, she is continuing to live in that company quarter. When the wife had thus failed to vacate the quarter, the company had threatened her with forcible eviction. The Present Controversy:
( 3 ) FACED by the hovering prospect of eviction, the wife had gone to the court of the Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, for protection. She filed O. S. No. 689/82 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, for a permanent injunction restraining the company and her husband from evicting her and her minor children from the company quarter. She made her husband a second defendant to the suit. Pending the hearing of that suit, she asked for a temporary injunction to maintain her possession of the quarter. The District Munsif had initially granted the wife
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
