Advocates:
Promod Metha and Manohar Dalal for applicant; Sanyal for non-applicant.

Key Points: - A petitioner/landlord sought to invoke section 23-A (b) claiming retired servant of Life Insurance Corporation qualifies as landlord under section 23-J (!) . - The Court held the Life Insurance Corporation is an instrumentality of the State for Art. 12 purposes but employees are not servants of Union/State; thus not within category of landlord under section 23-J (!) . - The term "Company" under section 23-J(ii) must be read as a company incorporated under the Companies Act; a Corporation, even if wholly owned/controlled by Government, is not automatically a "Company" for this provision (!) . - A landlord invoking Chapter III-A must satisfy one of the specified categories; a Corporation cannot be treated as a "Company" under the Act for the purposes of section 23-J(ii) (!) . - The definition of "landlord" in Chapter III-A is restrictive; cannot be enlarged to include a statutory Corporation (!) . - The revision was dismissed, affirming that a retired servant of the Corporation cannot be a retired servant of a Company owned/controlled by the Government for section 23-J(ii) (!) . - References to Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (AIR 1975 SC 1331) and analysis distinguishing Corporation from "Company" under the Act (!) . - Illustrates distinction between "Corporation" established by statute and "Company" under Companies Act; corporate status alone does not satisfy section 23-J(ii) (!) .

How to determine if a retired servant of a statutory corporation qualifies as a landlord under section 23-J of the Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)?

What is the meaning of "Company" under section 23-J(ii) of the Act for the purposes of Chapter III-A?

What are the implications of treating a statutory corporation as not a Government Company for eviction grounds under Chapter III-A?

Sobhagyamal vs Prakash Pharmaceuticals - 1989 Supreme(MP) 371