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

1989 Supreme(MP) 366

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. K. DUBEY
SOBHAGYAMAL - Appellant
Versus
PRAKASH PHARMACEUTICALS, INDORE - Respondents
C. R. 252 Of 1987
Decided On : 09/27/1989

Advocates Appeared:
M.DALAL, M.Sanyal

A retired servant of the LIC is not a landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, as the LIC is not a company owned or controlled by the Central or State Government within the meaning of Section 23-J (ii) of the Act.

Headnote:

ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT - SECTION 23-J - DEFINITION OF LANDLORD - RETIRED SERVANT OF A COMPANY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE CENTRAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT - CORPORATION IS NOT A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 23-J (II) OF THE ACT - A RETIRED SERVANT OF THE CORPORATION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A RETIRED SERVANT OF A COMPANY OWNED OR CONTROLLED EITHER BY THE CENTRAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired servant of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), filed an application under Section 23-A (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (the Act) for eviction of the respondent tenant from non-residential accommodation on the ground of bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that an employee of the LIC does not fall within the category specified either under Clause (i) or Clause (ii) of Section 23-J of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner, being a retired servant of the LIC, is neither a retired Government servant nor a retired servant of a company owned or controlled by the Central or State Government. Therefore, the application for eviction was rightly dismissed as not maintainable.

Issues: Whether a retired servant of the LIC is a landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 23-J (ii) of the Act, which defines 'landlord' for the purposes of Chapter III-A, and held that the term 'company' in the provision means a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The court distinguished between a corporation established by or under an Act of Legislature and a body incorporated under an Act, and held that the LIC, being a corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, is not a company within the meaning of Section 23-J (ii) of the Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

S. K. DUBEY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision under S. 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'act') has been preferred by the landlord/ petitioner, aggrieved of the order dated 26-8-1987, passed in Case No. 90 (7) 110/ 85-86 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore (for short, the 'rent Controller'), whereby the application under S. 23-A (b) of the Act for eviction of the tenant/ respondent from the non-residential accommodation, has been dismissed.

( 2 ) THE circumstances giving rise to this revision are: The petitioner/ landlord filed an application under S. 23-A (b) of the Act for invoking the special jurisdiction conferred on the Rent Controller under Chapter III-A on the ground that the petitioner is a retired servant of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, the 'corporation') who falls within the definition of landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A, as specified in S. 23-J of the Act. After service of summons, the respondent/ tenant raised a jurisdictional objection; that neither the petitioner is a retired Government servant, nor is a retired servant of a Company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government; therefore, the application of the petitioner/ landlord is not tenable. The Rent Controller, after hearing, dismissed the application holding that an employee of the Corporation does not fall within the category specified either under Cl. (i) or Cl. (ii) of S. 23-J of the Act. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

( 3 ) THE contention of Shri M. Dalal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the Corporation is a corporate body established under (The) Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, the 'corporation Act') whereby, after nationalisation of life insurance business, all such business was transferred to the Corporation, established under the Corporation Act. The preamble of the Corporation Act clearly shows that it is a controlled business of life insurance by the Central Government. Though the Corporation has been established and constituted under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Corporation Act, if one goes through the various provisions of the Corporation Act, the structure of the Corporation indicates that the Corporation is an agency of the Central Government carrying on life insurance business. Therefore, the Corporation is an authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India; a retired servant of such a Corporation will be termed as a servant of any Government. In any case, the servant of the Corporation will be a servant of a company owned or controlled by the Central Government. Therefore, if the case does not fall under category (i), certainly a retired servant of the Corporation, under Cl. (ii) of S. 23-J, is a landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A and is entitled to approach the Rent Controller for seeking eviction of his tenant on the ground of "bona fide" requirement. Shri S. N. Sanyal, learned Counsel for the respondent/ tenant, submitted that the order of the Rent Controller is in accordance with law; a Corporation cannot be treated as a Company, unless it is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the 'companies Act'); the Corporation can also not be said to be a Government department and a retired servant of such Corporation cannot be said to be a Government servant; therefore, neither the petitioner was a retired Government servant nor he is a retired servant of a Company owned or controlled by the Central or State Government, hence, the Rent Controller rightly rejected the application.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned Course, I am of the opinion that this revision has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Indisputably, the petitioner' is a retired servant of the Corporation. For the purposes of Art. 12 of the Constitution, the Corporation is an authority, created by a statute and is an instrumentality or agency of the Central Government. In relation to the Corporation the










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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top