AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—The present civil revision petition is filed against the order dated December 23, 2004, made in C. M. P. No. 2233 of 2004 in C. M. A. No. 168 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner is a tenant in the ground floor of the building situated at door Nos. 109 and 110, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. The area occupied by the petitioner is 800 sq. ft. approximately. The landlord of the building entered into an agreement on March 30, 1989, with a third party for sale of the said building for a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs. The appropriate authority constituted under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act ("the Act" in short), initiated proceedings and purchased the building. The appropriate authority ordered the building to be purchased by the Central Government for the sale consideration as shown in the agreement. Later the appropriate authority passed an order communicating to the petitioner that the property stood vested in the Central Government by virtue of Section 269UE(1) of the Act, free from all encumbrances with effect from June 22, 1989, and hence the petitioner was directed to surrender the possession of the building. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the appropriate authority, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court and this Court dismissed the writ petition. The said Madras High Court judgment is reported in Adair Dutt and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority, . Aggrieved by the said judgment of this Court, the petitioner preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ( Adair Dutt and Co. India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, ) passed an order wherein it was held as follows (page 444):
We think that the question regarding application of the T.N. Act to buildings owned by the Central Government must be considered afresh by the High Court in view of the aforesaid contention. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under challenge and remit this case to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition afresh in the light of the observations made above.
In consequence of the setting aside of this Court''s order and remitting the case for disposal afresh by the Supreme Court, this Court considered the matter in Adair Dutt and Co. (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, and held as follows (page 676):
It is, therefore, clear that though the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, does not specifically exclude buildings owned by the Union Government from its purview, by reason of the fact that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, would become applicable to this building on and after an order in respect of that building was made under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a consequence of which order the building vests in the Union of India, the State law governing eviction will cease to apply to this building.
An order made u/s 269UD and other provisions of the Income Tax Act does not always have the effect of depriving a tenant of his tenancy rights. As pointed out by the apex court in the case of C.B. Gautam Vs. Union of India and Others, that would depend upon the terms of the agreement to sell. If the agreement does not contemplate vacant possession being given to the buyer, termination of the lease cannot be said to be a part of the agreed terms. In this case, the agreement to sell specifically provides for the purchaser being enabled to receive the rents from the tenant after due notice to the tenant by the seller. That tenancy cannot be said to have come to an end by reason of the proceedings taken under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act.
The Union of India, after it becomes the owner of the premises, however may deal with the tenant in accordance with the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, in the event of such tenant becoming an unauthorised occupant by reason of a notice terminating the petitioner''s tenancy, being given by the Central Government.
The impugned notice, in so far as it requires the tenant to hand over possession solely on the ground that an order had been made under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act cannot, therefore, be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside.
The petition is allowed.
In consequence of the above order, the abovementioned respondent issued a show-cause notice by letter dated November 2, 2004, in C. No. CC-II/289(2)/89-90, to the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the order of eviction should not be made, and also directing the petitioner to appear before the abovementioned respondent with all the relevant documentary materials and evidences on November 22, 2004. The petitioner also sent a reply dated November 18, 2004, stating that the petitioner is a statutory tenant and the said statutory status acquired during the period prior to the purchase of the property by the respondent and hence all the rights under the Rent Control Act have accrued in their favour and the said accrued rights could not be taken away even by the Legislature. The respondent, by order dated December 7, 2004, in C. No. CC-II/289(2)/89-90, passed an order and held as under:
For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that a portion in the public premises, viz., door Nos. 109 and 110, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 is in unauthorised occupation of M/s. Adair Dutt & Co. India P. Ltd. Accordingly, I direct the above company to vacate the said portion in the premises at Nos. 109 and 110, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 under their unauthorised occupation on or before December 24, 2004, and hand over possession to the undersigned.
From the above, it is clear that the abovementioned respondent directed the petitioner to vacate their portion in the premises at Nos. 109 and 110, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 under their occupation on or before December 24, 2004, and hand over possession to the respondent. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed C.M.A. No. 168 of 2004 before the Principal City Civil Court at Chennai u/s 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, raising various grounds questioning the correctness of the order passed by the respondent. When the matter was pending, the petitioner also filed C.M.P. No. 2233 of 2004 and requested to stay the order of eviction made by the respondent by order dated December 7, 2004. The respondent also filed a counter to the effect that the order of the respondent is valid and has been made after observing due process of law by following the procedure prescribed under the Act, and therefore, it is not a fit case to grant stay. It was also further stated by the respondent that the petitioner did not take any steps to deposit the rent till today. It was also specifically stated that the cheques issued by the petitioner towards rent from July 22, 1994, were returned back as they were not the tenants. After considering the arguments, the VIth Addl. City Civil Court dismissed the C. M. P. with costs, by order dated December 23, 2004. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the lower court has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, by declining to grant stay and the balance of convenience is very much on the side of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner could not be termed as "unauthorised occupant". It is also his submission that the lower court dismissed the C.M.P. on the ground that the due procedure as envisaged under the order had been followed and that the petitioner had not paid the rents due on the premises. But the petitioner had been meticulously tendering the monthly rents due by cheque and the respondent had been returning the cheques tendered every month. Hence, the rejection of the stay petition by the lower court is wrong, illegal, without basis and justification.
Learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the petitioner is not the tenant and they are only unauthorised occupant. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not take any steps to deposit the rents earlier. Hence, the order passed by the lower court is in accordance with law.
Heard counsel. The present civil revision petition is against the dismissal of the stay petition filed u/s 9(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. It is stated that C.M.A. No. 168 of 2004 has been transferred from the VIth Addl. Judge, City Civil Court to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court and the same is posted for hearing on June 29, 2007. Further, it is stated by the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue that the petitioner is not in occupation of the premises and the Revenue had already taken possession by locking the premises. The fact is that the petitioner is not occupying the premises. In this case, all the procedures and formalities under the Act had been followed by the respondent. The petitioner also has not paid the rent.
Hence, the lower court has taken a view that it is not a fit case for granting stay. Granting stay is a discretionary one and in this case, the lower court exercised the discretion reasonably. Hence, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference. Under the circumstances, in the interest of justice, we direct the Principal Judge, City Civil Court to hear the said main appeal in C. M. A. No. 168 of 2004 and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the lower court and furnish materials and evidence, if any required, to support its case, in completing the proceedings.
With the above observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.