2015 Supreme(Raj) 1797
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
Transport Corporation of India and Others - Appellant
Versus
Kushal Chand - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9708 of 2014 with Stay Application No. 9075 of 2014.
Decided On : 10-09-2015
Advocates:
For the Petitioners: G.P. Sharma with M.C. Gupta, Counsels.
For the Respondent: J.C. Jain with Akash Gupta and Sonu Agarwal, Counsels.
Notice served on a company's corporate office is valid and Order 29, Rule 2 of the CPC does not limit the service of summons on the registered office alone.
Headnote:
EVICTION - RENT CONTROL ACT - NOTICE - SERVICE - VALIDITY - COMPANY - REGISTERED OFFICE - TP ACT, 1882, SECTION 106 - COMPANIES ACT, 1956, SECTION 51 - CPC, ORDER 29, RULE 2 - VALIDITY OF NOTICE SERVED ON COMPANY'S CORPORATE OFFICE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant-petitioner, a public limited company, challenged the eviction order passed by the Rent Tribunal and upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The landlord-respondent had served a notice under Section 106 of the TP Act on the tenant-petitioner's local office, claiming that the company had a paid-up capital of more than one crore and could be evicted after determination of tenancy. The tenant-petitioner contended that the notice was invalid as it was not served at its registered office and that the Rent Tribunal erred in applying Order 29, Rule 2 of the CPC, which is not applicable to corporations.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notice served on the tenant-petitioner's corporate office was valid and that the Rent Tribunal did not err in applying Order 29, Rule 2 of the CPC. The court relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Parasarampuria Synthetics Ltd. v. Shankar Prasad, which held that Order 29, Rule 2 of the CPC does not limit the service of summons on the registered office of the company alone and that service on the corporate office is also valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice served on the tenant-petitioner's local office was valid? 2. Whether the Rent Tribunal erred in applying Order 29, Rule 2 of the CPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notice served on the tenant-petitioner's corporate office was valid because: - Section 51 of the Companies Act, 1956, which provides for service of documents on a company, is directive in nature and allows for different modes of service. - Order 29, Rule 2 of the CPC, which provides for service of summons on a corporation, does not limit the service to the registered office alone and also allows for service on the corporate office. - The notice was sent to the tenant-petitioner's corporate office and was received by an employee of the company, who signed the acknowledgment due receipt. 2. The court held that the Rent Tribunal did not err in applying Order 29, Rule 2 of the CPC because: - The provisions of Order 29, Rule 2 of the CPC are not exhaustive and do not provide for all modes of service on a company. - Section 51 of the Companies Act, 1956 prevails over the provisions of the CPC and allows for service on the corporate office.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant-petitioner's writ petition, upholding the eviction order passed by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
1. Transport Corporation of India, petitioner herein, has approached this court assailing judgment dated 14.07.2011 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, in Original Application No.111/2007 and judgment dated 18.06.2014 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal in Rent Appeal No.21/2011. The Rent Tribunal, by aforesaid judgment directed eviction of tenant-petitioners from the rented premise of landlord-respondent. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, while dismissing appeal of tenant-petitioners, upheld judgment of the Rent Tribunal.
2. Landlord-respondent filed Original Application on 05.07.2007 under Sections 3(10) and 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Ajmer, against tenant-petitioners contending that since tenant-petitioner - Transport Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant-petitioner') is having paid up capital of more than one crore, it could be evicted from the rented premise on determination of tenancy after serving notice under Section 106 of the Transport of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'the TP Act'). Landlord-respondent served notice under Section 106 of the TP Act on tenant-petitioner and thus determined the contract of tenancy. Despite receipt of notice, tenant-petitioner did not handover vacant possession of rented premise. Prayer was made in Original Application for recovery of possession and direction to tenant-petitioner to vacate the rented premise.
3. Tenant-petitioner contested original application by filing reply thereto. It was averred that valid notice under Section 106 of the TP Act has not been served at registered office of tenant-petitioner, which is public limited company, and landlord-respondent did not implead the public limited company as party respondent through its registered office. The Rent Tribunal allowed original application and directed tenant-petitioner to handover vacant possession of rented premise within a period of six months. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, while dismissing appeal filed by tenant-petitioner, has maintained judgment of the Rent Tribunal. Hence this writ petition challenging both the judgments.
4. Shri G.P. Sharma, learned counsel for tenant-petitioner, has argued that since the rented premise was taken on rent by public limited company having its registered office at Sikandrabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh, landlord-respondent was under obligation to implead the public limited company as party respondent through its registered office. Even the notice under Section 106 of the TP Act was required to be served at the registered office of the company. Findings recorded by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal to the effect that service on tenant-petitioner was valid, is erroneous. The Rent Tribunal was wholly unjustified in applying provisions of Order 29, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the CPC'), which are not applicable in the matter regulating service process in the case of Corporation. It is argued that statutory provisions regulating service process in the case of Corporations are contained in Section 51 of the Companies Act, 1956, which mandates that a document may be served on a company or an officer thereof, by sending it to the company or officer at the registered office of the company by post under a certificate of posting or by registered post, or by leaving it at its registered office. "Document" has been defined in Section 2(15) of the Companies Act, 1956, which includes summons, notice, requisition, order, other legal process, and registers, whether issued, sent or kept in pursuance of this or any other Act or otherwise. Both the Tribunals have failed to comprehend the correct position of law that since there was no valid service of notice under Section 106 of the TP Act, the order of eviction could not be passed. Reliance in this behalf is also placed on Section 146 of the Companies Act, which, inter-alia, provides that a company shall, as from the day on which it begin
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
