1989 Supreme(MP) 371

S. K. Dobey, J.
Sobhagyamal v. Prakash Pharmaceuticals.
C.R. No. 252 of 1987 (I); Decided on 27-9-1989.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)-S. 23-J (ii)d`retired servant of Life Insurance Corporation- not a landlord under this provision.

        (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)-S. 23-J-term landlord as defined under-is restrictive.

       

       ¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒizŒ½ /kkjk 23&ts ¼nks½& thou chek fuxe dk lsok fuo`r deZPkkjh&bl mica/k ds v/khu Hkw&Lokeh ugha gSA

       ¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒizŒ½&/kkjk 23&ts&;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr ‘‘kCn ^Hkw&Lokeh*&fuca/kkRed gSA

        The petitioner/landlord filed an application under section 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 section 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 section 23-J of the Act. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

        Held: After hearing the learned counsel, 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 Apex court, after considering various provisions of the Corporation Act, has settled the position in case of Sukhdev Singh and others v. Bhagatram (AIR 1975 SC 1331) that the Life Insurance Corporation is State within the enlarged meaning of Art. 12 for the purposes of part III of the Constitution, but in para 67 the Supreme Court observed "By way of abundant caution we state that these employees are not servants of the Union or the State. These statutory bodies are authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution." I have also taken the view today in my Order in second Appeal No. 60/1984 (Tehmras Kharodi v. Tehamtan M. Thanewala) that the employees of statutory Corporation, like M.P. Electricity Board, created under Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, are not Government servants.

        The submission of Shri Dalal that the Corporation is wholly owned or controlled Company of the Central Government; therefore, a retired servant of the Corporation falls with the specified category of landlord under Cl, (ii) of section 23-J of the Act, has also no merit.

        When the legislature defined landlord" for the purposes of section 23-J in Chapter III-A of the Act, its intent related to those persons only who fall within the said specified categories and to none else. A landlord who invokes the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller for Claiming the special provisions for evicti0n of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement under Chapter III-A, falling in category (ii) of section 23-J, must be a retired servant of a Company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government. The word "Company" under section 23-J (ii) of the Act carries a different meaning than that of Corporation." The word "Company" is to be understood as a company incorporated under tae provisions of the Companies Act. Though, for the purposes of Art. 12 of the Constitution, it is immaterial for determination whether a Corporation is created by a statute or under A statute there the test is whether it is an instrumentality of the State or not. But when we look to the provisions of Cl. (ii) of section 23-J, we have to give the meaning to the word "Company" as assigned and defined under section 3 of the Companies Act, which means a Company formed and registered under the Companies Act, or an existing company as defined in clause (ii) of section 3 of the Companies Act.

        A corporation in its widest sense may mean any association of individuals entitled to act as an individual. But that certainly is not the sense in which it is used in section 23-J (ii) of the Act. Corporation established by or under an Act of legislature can only means a body corporate, which was its existence, and not merely to its Corporate status, to the Act. There is a clear distinction between a Corporation established by or under an Act and a body incorporated under an Act.

       The Corporation is also not a Government Company as defined under section 617 of the Companies Act. Hence also, even though the Corporation may be wholly owned or controlled by the Central Government, it cannot, for the purposes of section 23-J (ii) of the Act, be considered to be a Company, and a retired servant of the Corporation cannot be said to be a retired servant of a Company owned or controlled whether by the Central or State Government.

        A landlord, who invokes this special provision contained in Chapter III-A, must satisfy the test that he falls in any one of the specified categories of landlord under section 23-J of the Act. It may be mentioned that a Corporation may be a Company where the enactment so provides, just as in Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherein under section 3(e) the expression "Company" means a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1890, or a body incorporated by an Act or Parliament and includes a society registered, under the Societies Registration, Act, 1860, and a registered society within the meaning of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, and any other law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State. There, the definition of "Company" under section 3 (e) is in unmistable term that a company incorporated by an Indian law would be a Company for the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and in that definition a Corporation, which is a body corporate, also falls within the expression "Company". [See State of Punjab v. Raja Ram (1981 2 SCC 66) and Valjibhai v. State of Bombay (AIR 1963 SC 1890)]. But, like the definition in the Land Acquisition Act, there is no such definition or Explanation of the term "Company" under the Act. Therefore, the cases of the Apex Court, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have no application, as on a bare reading of section 23-J (ii), the expression "Company" would mean a company as is understood by its literal and plain meaning, a company incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act.

        It is settled principle of interpretation that where an interpretation clause defines a word to mean a particular thing, the definition is explanatory and prima facie restrictive; and whenever an interpretation clause defines a term to include something, the definition is extensive. The term "landlord" for the purposes of Chapter III-A has been defined giving particular meaning to specified categories, hence, the defintion of "landlord" is restrictive and cannot be enlarged to include a statutory corporation in the word "Company". AIR 1975 SC l331 explained. Revision dismissed.