Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Represented by its Secretary (Estates), Southern Zonal Office, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
M.R. Elangovan, Director, First Hoome Appliances (P) Ltd., Industrial & Prudential Building, Chennai & Others - Respondent
C.R.P.(NPD). No. 2590 of 2018 & C.M.P. Nos. 15541 & 22685 of 2018
Decided On : 30-11-2020
For the Petitioner:G. Rajagopalan, Additional Solicitor General (ASG), R.S. Anandan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Ayyadurai, Senior Counsel, A.S. Balaji, R. Loganathan, Advocates.
Headnote:
Indian Companies Act, 1913 – Sections 186, 7 – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules 1971 – Rule 8 – Renewal of lease – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Revision Petitioner is Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by its Secretary (Estates), Southern Zonal Office, No.153, Anna Salai, Chennai -2, herein after be called as LIC for the sake of brevity. Like that, M.R.Elangovan, P.Srinivasan, S.Pushpalatha, Directors of First Hoome Appliances (P) Ltd., Industrial and Prudential Building, No.819, Anna Salai, Chennai -2, the three respondents herein shall henceforth be called as the Lessee for the sake of brevity. – Held, He would also submit that, nevertheless, such a plea has never been raised at any point of time and even in their appeal, they had been acting upon only in the capacity as Director of the company and accordingly, they filed the appeal before the Lower Court and the company in the capacity as a separate juristic person has never come forward to act upon and it was not at all a party in the appeal filed and the company has not also filed any separate appeal as against the order of the Estate Officer and therefore, the entire plea raised in this regard on the side of the lessee as projected by the learned Senior counsel, according to the learned ASG, would be untenable. – Said offer made by the LIC, in their letter dated 14.09.2017, whether has been brought to the notice of the learned Judge before the first appellate Court is not so clear, therefore it seems that, there has been no discussion on that aspect by the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court. – However, insofar as the findings given by the Lower Appellate Court as to the point under Section 7 of the Act, that, the lessee had not been determined as unauthorised occupants and also the demand of Rs.1,45,55,422.35/- as passed by the Estate Officer under Section 7 of the Act was per se illegal and unsustainable inasmuch as the same is based on the retrospective fixation of the rent, is concerned, this Court feel that, those reasons can be accepted as additional reasons to set aside the order of the Estate Officer. – Court is of the considered opinion that, the order passed by the Estate Officer, dated 18.01.2018 in Petition No.10 of 2016 would be unjustifiable and unsustainable for all the reasons discussed herein above and accordingly, the said order is liable to be set aside based on not only the reasons given by the First Appellate Court, but also based on the reasons stated above. – Impugned order of the First Appellate Court is to be sustained, of course with some modifications. – Civil Revision Petition Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and set aside the order and decretal order, dated 25.06.2018 made in C.M.A.No.22 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)
1. The Revision Petitioner is Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by its Secretary (Estates), Southern Zonal Office, No.153, Anna Salai, Chennai -2, herein after be called as LIC for the sake of brevity. Like that, M.R.Elangovan, P.Srinivasan, S.Pushpalatha, Directors of First Hoome Appliances (P) Ltd., Industrial and Prudential Building, No.819, Anna Salai, Chennai -2, the three respondents herein shall henceforth be called as the Lessee for the sake of brevity.
2. The case of the LIC, which leads to file this Civil Revision Petition, as projected by them, are as follows:
2.1. that the LIC and MI Group of Company represented by Sri.M.R.Elangovan, the first respondent herein entered into a lease agreement, dated 22.04.2005 in respect of the petition premises, i.e., 8851 sq.ft., building known as Industrial and Prudential Building situated at No.819, Anna Salai, Chennai -2 in the Registration sub-District of Triplicane and Registration District of Chennai bearing Survey Nos. 10 and 9, for the lease period of three years from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008 for a monthly rent of Rs.70,065/- by calculating the same at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft at ground floor and Rs.5/- per sq.ft at first floor, where the lessee was permitted to have furniture trade in the name of A & A Furnitures.
2.2. The said lease since was expired by 31.03.2008 it had to be renewed from 01.04.2008 by mutual agreement of both LIC and the lessee, however for variety of reasons, the lease could not be extended by express terms of further written extension of lease agreement between the parties. However the lessee had been in continuous possession and occupation of the premises, therefore it was construed as tenancy by holding over on month to month basis. While so on 01.07.2009, according to the LIC, there had been a rental arrears of Rs.2,38,929/- and the same was directed to be paid by the letter issued by the LIC, where, it is to be noted that, there was no mentioning about the extension of lease.
2.3. Subsequently on 21.08.2009, the LIC sent another communication to the lessee to settle the rental arrears of Rs.3,20,651/- and further stated that, it was a final opportunity given to the lessee to pay the arrears, otherwise legal action would be taken against the lessee.
2.4. Subsequently in response to these communications, or to the earlier communication, the lessee, i.e., the first respondent herein, had sent a communication on 08.12.2008, which according to the LIC, was received by them on 31.03.2009, wherein it was stated that, the first respondent had promoted a company called M/s. First Hoome Appliances (P) Ltd., wherein he was one of the Director and the said company will be henceforth operating at the rented premises and hereafter the rent and other payments would be paid by the company and the rental payments and the tax deduction will be made at the source henceforth only in the name of the new company.
2.5. Subsequently on 02.04.2009, LIC issued a letter to the first respondent requesting them to furnish the Form No.16A to the tune of Rs.5,44,427/-. Thereafter on 23.04.2011, the first respondent had written to the LIC stating that, though in the year 2005, the petition premises was taken possession by him on behalf of MR Group of Companies for carrying on furniture business under the name of A & A Furniture, thereafter since a company was formed in the name and style of First Hoome Appliances (P) Ltd., on 30.10.2008 with two other Directors, namely P.Srinivasan and Pushpalatha Srinivasan (the second and third respondents herein) to carry on business under the name and sty
