SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Cal) 505

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SOUMEN SEN, J.
Mr.s. Premlata Arya & Another
Versus
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. & Others
CS No. 323, 324 of 1989 (Original Side)
Decided On : 12-08-2013

Advocates:
Cases Referred :
1. 2006 4 CHN 7 (Shila Roy Choudhury & Ors. Vs. Nimai Charan Rakshit);
2. 1978 4 SCC 1 (Firm Sardarilal Vishwanath & Ors. Vs. Pritam Singh);
3. 1976 ILR 2 Cal 247 (Radha Gobinda Chandra Vs. Nritya Gopal Karmakar).
4. AIR 1952 SC 23 (Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, Dhabal Deb & Anr.);
5. AIR 1955 Cal.502 (Sm. Durgesh Nandini Devi v. Aolad Shaikh)
6. 2012 (8) SCC 441 (Avishek Goenka (2) vs. Union of India & Anr.)
7. Singer India Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan Chadda reported in (2004) 7 SCC 2

Headnote:

LANDLORD TENANT - Amalgamation - Transfer of tenancy - Consent of landlord - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, Sections 13(1)(a), 14 - Companies Act, 1956, Sections 391, 394 - Amalgamation of company-tenant with another company - Transfer of tenancy right by virtue of amalgamation order to transferee company - Whether illegal - Whether transferee company becomes trespasser.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs were the owners of an office space on the first floor at premises no. 24, Park Street, Kolkata. The plaintiffs purchased the suit premises from its erstwhile owner, Calcutta Credit Corporation Limited, which had let out the same to one Standard Pharmaceuticals Limited (the original tenant). There was an attornment of tenancy in favour of the present plaintiffs, 16th May, 1977 prior to the purchase of the suit premises by the plaintiffs and thereafter the rents were being paid by the original tenant to the present plaintiffs. In or about November, 1988 the plaintiffs for the first time noticed that the original tenant has been describing itself as a division of the defendant no.1, Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited. The plaintiffs upon enquiry could discover that pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation the said original tenant has merged with the defendant no.1 and have thereafter being dissolved without winding up. Inasmuch as the same amounted to an assignment of the tenancy of the original tenant without consent of the landlord, the plaintiffs filed the instant suit seeking, inter alia, eviction of the defendants from the suit premises as a consequence of amalgamation of the original defendant with the defendant no.1. The defendants had come to occupy the said premises on the basis of such order sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation. The plaintiffs could also ascertain that the original defendant had merged with the defendant no.1 in or about 1983. The plaintiff had never consented to transfer of such tenancy in favour of the defendants.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the transfer of tenancy consequent on amalgamation of a company with another amounted to a transfer without the written permission or consent of the landlord and as such the transferee in possession of the tenanted premises cannot be deemed or considered to be a tenant in respect of the same. The entry of the defendant no.1 in the suit premises is by virtue of the order sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation. By virtue of the said order of amalgamation, the original tenant company stood dissolved as it merged with the defendant no.1. This Hon’ble Court by sanctioning of the scheme, only considered the agreement entered into between the parties and the rights and liabilities inter se that may form part of the scheme sanctioned by the court cannot bind the third party, namely the landlord.

Issues: None

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the transfer of tenancy right by virtue of the amalgamation order to the transferee company is illegal within the meaning of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as alleged in paragraph 7 of the plaint. The defendants are trespasser in respect of the suit premises.

Final Decision: The Court decreed for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises as more fully described in Schedule A to the plaint and mesne profits from May 1986 till recovery of possession.

JUDGMENT

Soumen Sen, J.

The plaintiffs are owners of an office space on the first floor at premises no. 24, Park Street, Kolkata, measuring 1978 sq.ft. together with the parking space in the courtyard (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises). The plaintiffs have instituted the suit against the defendents fort recovery of possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits from May, 1986 till possession.

The plaintiffs purchased the suit premises from its erstwhile owner, Calcutta Credit Corporation Limited, which had let out the same to one Standard Pharmaceuticals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the original tenant). There was an attornment of tenancy in favour of the present plaintiffs, 16th May, 1977 prior to the purchase of the suit premises by the plaintiffs and thereafter the rents were being paid by the original tenant to the present plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, in or about November, 1988 the plaintiffs for the first time noticed that the original tenant has been describing itself as a division of the defendant no.1, Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited. The plaintiffs upon enquiry could discover that pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation the said original tenant has merged with the defendant no.1 and have thereafter being dissolved without winding up. Inasmuch as the same amounted to an assignment of the tenancy of the original tenant without consent of the landlord, the plaintiffs filed the instant suit seeking, inter alia, eviction of the defendants from the suit premises as a consequence of amalgamation of the original defendant with the defendant no.1. The defendants had come to occupy the said premises on the basis of such order sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation. The plaintiffs could also ascertain that the original defendant had merged with the defendant no.1 in or about 1983. The plaintiff had never consented to transfer of such tenancy in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs were advised to file the instant suit for eviction of the defendant no.1 on the ground of illegal transfer/assignment of the said premises by the original tenant, the defendant no.1. The plaintiffs prior to obtaining such legal advice were not aware of their right to initiate the present action against the defendant no.1.

The plaintiffs contended that in the events that have happened the defendant no.1 is under an obligation to make over the suit premises as the defendant no.1 is in occupation of the property as a trespasser without having any semblance of right to occupy the suit premises. The said transfer/assignment is illegal, as the plaintiffs never had given any consent to the original tenant within the meaning of Section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The plaintiffs could further ascertain that the defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 are also having their offices and are carrying on their business on the said premises. The plaintiffs, at no point of time, had ever given any permission or consent to the continuous occupation of the said defendants or use of the said premises or any portion thereof. The plaintiffs had duly served on the said defendants two notices both dated February 8, 1989 (Ext. “F”) calling upon them to hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs. The defendants and each of them however has refused to make over a vacant possession of the suit premises. The occupation of the defendant in the suit premises from May, 1986 is illegal and the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits. On these facts, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

The defendents contested the proceeding and have filed the written statement. The defendants contended that the defendants are protected by Clause 5 and Clause 11 of the tenancy agreement entered into on 22nd January, 1973. Pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation made by and between Standard Pharmaceuticals Limited and the defendant no.1 sanctioned by this Hon’ble Court and the Gujarat High Court by orders dated 22nd January, 1983 and 7





























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top