IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 7448 of 2011
Decided On: 05.09.2011
The National Textile Corporation Ltd.
Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Ors.
Hon’ble Judges/Coram:P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Citation:(2011) 12 SCC 695
A. The suit premises belongs to the trust run by the Respondents Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Ors. Sh. Damodar Dass Tapi Dass and Sh. Daya Bhai Tapidas executed a lease deed dated 11.3.1893 in respect of the suit premises admeasuring 12118 sq. yds. bearing plot No. 9 in Survey No. 73 of Lower Parel Division, N.M. Joshi Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400 011, in favour of a company named Hope Mills Limited for a period of 99 years commencing from 22.10.1891. The lease so executed was to expire on 21.10.1990.B. The original owners transferred and conveyed the suit property in favour of one Harichand Roopchand and Ratan Bai on 22.2.1907. Thereafter, the suit property came to be vested in and owned by a public charitable trust, namely, Harichand Roopchand Charity Trust (hereinafter called as `Trust’).C. The leasehold rights in respect of suit property stood transferred to Prospect Mills Ltd. and, thereafter to Diamond Spinning & Weaving Company Pvt. Ltd. and, ultimately, vide a lease indenture dated 25.10. 1926 to Toyo Poddar Cotton Mills Ltd.(hereinafter called the ‘Poddar Mills’).D. The Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983 (hereinafter called `the Act 1983′) was enacted by the Parliament in order to take over the management of 13 textile undertakings including the Poddar Mills pending their nationalisation. The lease granted in favour of Poddar Mills expired by efflux of time on 22.10.1990. Thus, the said Poddar Mills continued as a tenant by holding over the suit premises. The Trust issued a legal notice dated 2.12.1994 to the National Textile Corporation (hereinafter called as the Appellant), terminating its tenancy qua the suit premises. The Parliament enacted the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called `the Act 1995′). The Trust filed an eviction suit against the Appellant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called `the Act 1947′). The Act 1947 stood repealed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter called `the Act 1999′). The Respondent-Trust issued a notice for terminating the tenancy of the Appellant vide notice dated 26.9.2000. The Respondents/Plaintiffs after withdrawal of the suit filed under the Act 1947, filed a fresh suit in the Small Causes Court at Bombay seeking eviction of Appellant and for a decree of mesne profits on 20.4.2001. The Appellant filed the written statement denying the pleas taken by the Respondents/Plaintiffs. The suit was decreed in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.2006 by which the Appellant was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondents within four months.E. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred Appeal No. 627 of 2006 to the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay on 13.11.2006 which was dismissed by the appellate court by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2008. The Appellant preferred civil revision before the High Court of Bombay, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 3.8.2009.Hence, this appeal.
…in the absence of pleadings, evidence if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered…. No. party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it.
Without specific pleadings in that regard, evidence could not be led in since it is settled principle of law that No. amount of evidence can be looked unless there is a pleading. Therefore, without amendment of the pleadings merely trying to lead evidence is not permissible.
…. there is a fundamental difference between a case of raising additional grounds based on the pleadings and the material available on record and a case of taking a new plea not borne out of the pleadings. In the former case No. amendment of pleading is required, whereas in the latter it is necessary to amend the pleadings…The Respondents cannot be permitted to make out a new case by seeking permission to raise additional grounds in revision.
A Government department has to be an organisation which is not only completely controlled and financed by the Government but has also No. identity of its own. The money earned by such a department goes to the exchequer of the Government and losses incurred by the department are losses of the Government. The Corporation, on the other hand, is an autonomous body capable of acquiring, holding and disposing of property and having the power to contract. It may also sue or be sued by its own name and the Government does not figure in any litigation to which it is a party.
The legal position is that identity of the government company remains distinct from the Government. The government company is not identified with the Union but has been placed under a special system of control and conferred certain privileges by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 619 and 620 of the Companies Act. Merely because the entire shareholding is owned by the Central Government will not make the incorporated company as Central Government….(Emphasis added)
Therefore, we are of the view that on a plain meaning of the word “PSUs”as understood by the legislature, it is clear that, India’s PSUs are in the form of statutory corporations, public sector companies, government companies and companies in which the public are substantially interested (see the Income Tax Act, 1961). When the word PSU is mentioned in Section 3(1)(b), the State Legislature is presumed to know the recommendations of the various Parliamentary Committees on PSUs. These entities are basically cash-rich entities. They have positive net asset value. They have positive net worths. They can afford to pay rents at the market rate…we hold that Section 3 (1) (b) clearly applies to different categories of tenants, all of whom are capable of paying rent at market rates. Multinational companies, international agencies, statutory corporations, government companies, public sector companies can certainly afford to pay rent at the market rates. This thought is further highlighted by the last category in Section 3 (1) (b). Private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid-up share capital of more than Rs 1,00,00,000 are excluded from the protection of the Rent Act. This further supports the view which we have taken that each and every entity mentioned in Section 3(1)(b) can afford to pay rent at the market rates.(Emphasis added)
3(1) On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to every textile undertaking shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government.(2) Every textile undertaking which stands vested in the Central Government by virtue of Sub-section (1), shall immediately after it has so vested, stand transferred to, and vested in, the National Textile Corporation.(Emphasis added)