2013 Supreme(Bom) 656

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
The Consulate General of Iran
Versus
M/s. Baldota Brothers
Civil Revision Application No.12 of 2013
Decided on : 18-03-2013

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 51 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 3(1)(b) - Exemption to Foreign State under Act.

       Since Foreign State is not excluded from purview of Act, 1999 hence they cannot be claimed as of right by paying meagre rent or compensation.

       MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999 - Section 3(1)(b) - CPC, 1908, Section 86 - Eviction of tenant.

       Since term "Foreign Mission" used in Section 3 of Act includes term "Foreign State" hence eviction of tenant, a foreign State by Appellate Court, justified. - None of the provisions that Mr. Dani relies upon will assist him in making the above distinction for the purpose of Section 13(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. These provisions are inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to enable Foreign State being sued in a Court in India. The requirement to sue that Foreign State in India is a matter dealt with by Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It becomes clear if one peruses the sub-sections of Section 86. In fact, if sub-section (4) of Section 86 is noticed, it will clarify that Section 86(1) to (3) applies to any Ruler of Foreign State, any Ambassador or Envoys of a Foreign State, any High Commissioner of a Common Wealth Country and any such member of the Staff. Therefore, these provisions enable a person in India to sue a Foreign State, Ambassadors and Envoys and such Officials of the Foreign State, who are working or performing their duties in India. It is also to give immunity to the Foreign State and the dignity and the independence of that State, which is finding recognition in Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That concept and the definition of the term "Foreign State" in Section 87-A will not be of any assistance. The lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the word "Foreign Mission" will have to be construed in its ordinary and common parlance meaning. The meaning of the term "Foreign Mission", therefore, has not been legally given. If it is not defined legally or legislatively, it does not mean that its plain and dictionary meaning cannot be resorted to. It can be taken recourse to if it is in accord with the object and purpose of a particular Statute and fits in the context in which that term is used by the Legislature. Therefore, the word "Foreign Mission" has rightly been understood by the lower Appellate Court to mean "a home in a foreign country", where a group of persons are sent to conduct negotiations, diplomatic delegation, embassy work etc. The Legislature has that broad meaning in mind. It has in the back-drop and context of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and while exempting International Agencies, Multinational Companies and Foreign Missions, understood these terms as such Entities which are located or conducted in a country which is foreign to that where the home organization is established. That is clearly understood as belonging to another nation or country that which is out of a certain State, country, jurisdiction etc. It is in that context and where all functions of a Foreign Government are carried out, which is termed as a "Foreign Mission". It has been grouped together with International Agencies, Multinational Corporations primarily because these Entities are not having any domestic or national character. For the purposes of trading and diplomatic relations, they establish themselves in India and particularly in part of India, namely, Maharashtra State. They do not have to be protected by a State Rent Control Legislation as by their nomenclature and the nature of functions, they have certain financial and economic stability and they can afford to pay the rent at market rate, it is with that intent and purpose that they stand out of the purview of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Mr. Dani, therefore, could not point out anything which can be said to be a distinguishing feature or not covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above quoted case.

       The exclusion from the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, does not in any manner interfere with the principle of reciprocality or respect to Foreign States or friendly nations. The status and dignity of a Foreign Mission discharging diplomatic and consulate functions has nothing to do with their exclusion from the Rent Act. The Constitution of India by Article 51 provides that the State shall endeavour to promote international peace and security, maintain just and honourable relations between nations, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized people with one another and encourage settlements of international disputes by arbitration. Neither the promotion of international peace and security, nor maintaining just and honourable relations between nations and, equally, respect for International Law and treaty obligations and encourage men to settle international disputes by arbitration, which is the Mandate flowing from this Article, is adversely affected. The Legislation in question is excluding "Foreign Missions" from the purview of the Rent Control Act and the premises which have, been let or subject to these International Entities. The premises covered in this case do not belong to Government and are a private property. Therefore, they cannot be claimed as of right by paying meager rent or compensation That such Entities will have to pay rent or compensation at market rate does not mean that Article 51 or any Convention internationally adopted is in any way violated. Therefore, the argument based on the applicability of Vienna Convention and the immunity given to the premises of Foreign Missions cannot be applied in this case.

       Once the above view is taken, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, nor can it be said that the jurisdiction has been exercised with material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Mr. Madon, senior counsel appearing for the respondents/original plaintiffs, is right in urging that all the arguments of the applicants/original defendants are an attempt to delay handing over possession of the suit premises and once they have acquired another property. It is clear that the suit has been instituted by a partnership firm and a suit can be instituted by the partners in the name of their firm. The procedural aspects have also been complied with.

       MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999 - Section 3(1)(b) - CPC, 1908, Section 86 - Protection under Act to Foreign Mission. -

       Since term "Foreign Mission" includes term "foreign State" hence applicant tenant, a Consulate General of Iran, not protected under Act, 1999. - Requirement to sue Foreign State in India is matter dealt with by Section 86 of CPC. Section 86(4) clarifies that Section 86(1) to (3) applies to any Ruler of Foreign State, any Ambassador or Envoys of Foreign State, any High Commissioner of Common Wealth Country and any such member of Staff. Therefore these provisions enable person in India to sue Foreign State, Ambassadors and Envoys and such officials of Foreign State, who are working or performing their duties in India. It is also to give immunity to Foreign State and dignity and independence of that State, which is finding recognition in Section 86 of CPC. That concept and definition of term ’Foreign State’ in Section 87-A will not be of any assistance. Lower Appellate Court is right in holding that word ’Foreign Mission’ will have to be construed it its ordinary and common parlance meaning.

       Meaning of term ’Foreign Mission’, therefore, has not been legally given. If it is not defined legally or legislatively, it does not mean that its plain and dictionary meaning cannot be resorted to. It can be taken recourse to if it is in accord with object and purpose of particular Statute and fits in context in which that term is used by Legislature.

       Therefore, word ’Foreign Mission’ has rightly been understood by lower Appellate Court to mean ’home in foreign country’, where group of persons are sent to conduct negotiations, diplomatic delegation, embassy work etc. Legislature has that broad meaning in mind. It has in back drop and context in Section 3(1)(b) of MRC Act, 1999, and while exempting International Agencies, Multinational Companies and Foreign Missions, understood these terms as such Entities which are located or conducted in country which is foreign to that where home organization is established.

       That is clearly understood as belonging to of another nation or country that which is out of certain State, Country, Jurisdiction etc. It is in that context and where all function of Foreign Government are carried out, which is termed Agencies Multinational Corporations primarily because these Entities are not having any domestic or national character. For purposes of trading and diplomatic relations, they establish themselves in India and particularly in part of India, namely Maharashtra State.