Vallabhdas Mohanlal Pandya Decd. thro heir Jamnaben Pandya vs Tata Chemicals Ltd.

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—Present revision u/s 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels & Lodging House Rates Control Act (for short, "the Rent Act") is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th July 1996 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Jamnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1994 whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 19th March 1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dwarka in Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 1987 was confirmed.

The facts in brief are that the Respondent-Company had allotted one of its residential quarters to Appellant-deceased Vallabhdas Mohanlal Pandya since he was an employee of the Respondent-Company. The Appellant herein is the legal heir and representative of the deceased employee. The deceased employee had expired while in service on 13th June 1974 but, the Appellant continued to occupy the quarter.

Therefore, the Respondent-Company preferred R.C.S. No. 105 of 1987 before the trial Court claiming possession of the quarter together with user charges, etc. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent-Company and directed the Defendant-employee to vacate the premise on or before 01st July 1994.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the legal heir of the deceased employee preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1994 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court rejected the said appeal by impugned judgment and order dated 20th July 1996. Hence, present Revision Application.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Before the Courts below, a contention was raised by the Defendants that the provisions of the Rent Act shall be applicable to the present case and that there existed the relationship of master - servant between the Plaintiff and Defendant. However, the said submission was not accepted by the Courts below since the area in which the residential quarter of the Respondent-Company is constructed is an independent revenue unit and does not fall within the area of any Gram Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Palika / Municipal Corporation. The residential quarters is situated within the area called Mithapur Township established by the Respondent-Company over lands bearing different survey numbers of different villages. The Government of Gujarat constituted the independent revenue unit of Mithapur by passing Notification dated 16th June 1968 in exercise of powers u/s 7-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Thus, the provisions of the Rent Act does not apply to the residential quarters belonging to the Respondent-Company.

It appears from the record that the Respondent-Company, before instituting legal proceedings against the employee, had issued Notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the lease, by treating the Defendant as "lessee" u/s 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, the legality of which was assailed by the Defendants. In the present case, the residential quarter was leased to the employee on condition that he shall occupy the said quarter until his employment with the Respondent-Company and that his occupation shall come to an end on his discontinuance from the employment of Respondent-Company. Therefore, Notice as contemplated u/s 106 of the T.P. Act for terminating the lease is not necessary in this case. Even without issuing Notice, the Respondent-Company can institute the suit for recovery of leased property.

It is an admitted fact that the employee had undertaken to pay specified amount by way of rent charges and also to pay all other admissible charges, viz. electricity, etc. for the residential quarter occupied by the Respondent-Company. Such occupation was liable to come to an end upon his employment being terminated by the Respondent-Company or on his being retired or on his resigning from the services of the Respondent-Company. In such cases, the employee has undertaken to vacate the residential quarters within 14 days from the date his employment with the Respondent-Company comes to an end. However, in case of dismissal from service by the Respondent-Company, the employee is not entitled for the said grace period and he has to vacate the quarters immediately. He has also undertaken that he shall not claim any right of tenancy in the said quarter. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects of the case, it is evident that No. interest was granted to the employee in the quarter by the allotment of quarter but, only a personal privilege was given to the employee to use and occupy the quarter so long as he remains in employment of the Respondent-Company. The quarter was allotted to the employee by the Respondent-Company as a condition of service. The employee was merely a "licensee" of the quarter. The Defendants were not in a position to show that they have any legal right to occupy the quarter even after the cessation of service with the Respondent-Company. In view of the above, it can be safely concluded that the proceeding before the trial Court was not a case instituted under the Rent Act but, was a case instituted under the ordinary civil jurisdiction of a civil court for recovery of possession of quarter from an ex-employee. Hence, the occupation of the quarter by the heir of the employee since 1974 is illegal and unlawful.

Before parting, it would be pertinent to bear in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court while dealing with revisions arising u/s 29(2) of the Rent Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Patel Valmik Himatlal and Ors. v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai 1999 (1) G.L.R. 15 (SC) while approving and reiterating the principles laid down in its earlier decision in the case of Helper Girdharbhai Vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and Others, held that High Court cannot function as a Court of appeal, cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record, cannot discard concurrent findings of fact based on evidence recorded by the Courts below and cannot interfere on grounds of inadequacy or insufficiency of evidence and cannot interfere, except in cases where conclusions drawn by the Courts below are on the basis of No. evidence at all or are perverse. A different interpretation on facts is also not possible merely because another view on the same set of facts may just be possible. Having gone through the impugned judgment and decrees passed by both the Courts below wherein concurrent findings have been recorded, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the same u/s 29(2) of the Rent Act.

For the foregoing reasons, the revision application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. At this stage, learned Counsel Mr. Majmudar requests to grant some reasonable time to vacate the premises in question. Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Respondent-Company shall not initiate execution proceedings up to 13th November 2011. In view of the said statement made by learned Counsel for the Respondent, interim relief is not required to be extended. No. order as to costs.