A company can be represented in a suit by a duly constituted agent, even if the company's managing director has ceased to be the managing director.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Misra, J. - The Defendant is in appeal against a reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bolangir in a suit for eviction and arrears of house rent. The Plaintiff which is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act through its Managing Director instituted the suit for eviction and recovery of rent and other ancillary reliefs on the allegation that the Defendant was a tenant in respect of a house belonging to the Company.

2. The defence taken was that the house did not belong to the Plaintiff, but the vacant site of the Company was taken by the Defendant who raised the structure at his own expenses. The alleged lease deed was never acted upon and the Defendant had never paid any rent to the Plaintiff because nothing was due. The maintainability of the suit was also disputed.

3. The learned trial judge came to hold that the Defendant was a monthly tenant under the Plaintiff-Company on payment of rent of Rs. 30/- per month. But he found that Kumar Bhupal Singh was not entitled to represent the Company. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed as not maintainable. The Plaintiff appealed.

4. AS it appears from paragraph 6 of the appellate judgment, the only point which was mooted was about the maintainability of the action. The learned appellate Judge came to find that the Company was verily in existence and Kumar Bhupal Singh continued to be the Managing Director. He accordingly reversed the decree of the trial Court and gave a decree as prayed for.

5. The Defendant is in appeal against this reversing decree.

6. Two questions arise for decision, firstly, it is contended that the provisions of the Orissa House Rent Control Act have now been extended to this area and the disputed property being within the Notified Area Counsel and to that area the new Act having been extended, the decree for eviction cannot be granted by the Civil Court. Relief, if any, is available only from the Controller under that Act. There is no material on record to show that the disputed property is within the territorial limits of the Notified Area Council to which the Orissa House Rent Control Act has been extended. The learned Counsel for both sides ask for the matter to be remanded on that count. I think, the suggestion is absolutely fair and it would be proper to vacate the decree for eviction and can upon the learned trial Judge to decide whether the Orissa House Rent Control Act applies to the disputed house. In case he finds that it does, the deoree for eviction cannot be granted and to that extent the suit is bound to be dismissed.

7. The next question for examination is about the maintainability of the action. The learned appellate Judge had stated that nothing was shown to him that Kumar Bhupal Singh had, ceased to be the Managing Director of the Company and, therefore he came to hold that he must be continuing as the Managing Director even on the date of the suit. This suit was tiled on 6-5-1964. The new Companies Act came into force on 1-4-1956. Mr. Murty learned Counsel for the Appellant relies upon the provisions of Section 317(2) of the Act. It provides:

Any individual holding, at the commencement of this Act, the office of Managing Director in a Company shall, unless his term expires earlier, be deemed to have vacated his office immediately on the expiry of five years from the commencement of this Act.

This provision, by an amendment, was not made applicable to private Companies unless such Companies were subsidiaries of public Companies. But as it appears from the records, the Company in question is a public Company. Mr. Murty contends that by operation of the aforesaid provision with effect from 1-4-1961, Kumar Bhupal Singh must be held to have ceased to be the Managing Director. He also places reliance on the admission of the Managing Director as a witness for the Plaintiff that under the Articles of Association, Directors were being appointed for the term of one year and were eligible for reappointment. The evid